Crazy number of 4 and 5 star QB's end up transferring

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,716
Reaction score
15,963
Points
113
per Axios:

In search of playing time and chasing NFL dreams, college football quarterbacks are transferring at a dizzying rate. New rules make that process even easier, so the trend is sure to continue.

By the numbers: To determine just how common transferring has become, I took a look at how many of the top QB recruits over the last 5 years have actually stayed put. The results are insane.

Class of 2014: 13 of the 23 4- and 5-star QB recruits transferred during their career. // Notable: Kyle Allen (Texas A&M to Houston), Will Grier (Florida to WVU), Keller Chryst (Stanford to Tennessee).

Class of 2015: 13 of 23 have transferred. // Notable: Kyler Murray (Texas A&M to Oklahoma), Brandon Wimbush (Notre Dame to UCF), Joe Burrow (Ohio State to LSU).

Class of 2016: 13 of 21 have transferred. // Notable: Jalen Hurts (Alabama to Oklahoma), Austin Kendall (Oklahoma to WVU), Shea Patterson (Ole Miss to Michigan), Jacob Eason (Georgia to Washington).

Class of 2017: 8 of 24 have transferred (after just 2 seasons). // Notable: Tate Martell (Ohio State to Miami), Hunter Johnson (Clemson to Northwestern).

Class of 2018: 3 of 34 have transferred (after just 1 season). // All: Justin Fields (Georgia to Ohio State), Jack Tuttle (Utah to Indiana), Cameron Rising (Texas to Utah).

The big picture: To find 2 consecutive recruiting classes where more than half of the 4- and 5-star QBs stayed put, you have to go all the way back to 2008 (10% transferred) and 2009 (37%).

Go Gophers!!
 

Just my opinion, but a lot of these kids are going to big name schools where there are other 4 and 5 star QB already on the roster or coming and unfortunately QB is one position where the back-up doesn't get a lot of time. The only way to get some serious playing time without it coming from an injury to the starter is by transferring. I don't think it is as much as "afraid of the competition/competing for a starting spot" as being realistic. Schools just don't change starting QBs very often.
 

There may have been a bit more high profile, but I think there is also just more focus on it so it seems bigger than it is.
 

Feels like the new normal. Wonder if over time we'll see it will affect their initial school commitments...
 

PMWinSTP said:
Feels like the new normal. Wonder if over time we'll see it will affect their initial school commitments...
Click to expand...

It definitely seems to be becoming a new normal for the highly rated QBs especially. If they don't get playing time early at the school where they committed they pack it up and head for somewhere else.

I don't think the trend is going to die down anytime soon and if the NCAA keeps giving guys waivers to play right away it will only get worse.

The slippery slope becomes when teams start recruiting players on other rosters. I am sure it is already happening to some degree.
 


MNfootballfan said:
Just my opinion, but a lot of these kids are going to big name schools where there are other 4 and 5 star QB already on the roster or coming and unfortunately QB is one position where the back-up doesn't get a lot of time. The only way to get some serious playing time without it coming from an injury to the starter is by transferring. I don't think it is as much as "afraid of the competition/competing for a starting spot" as being realistic. Schools just don't change starting QBs very often.
Click to expand...

Well said. This is how I see it too. You only have 4 or 5 years of college to play ball and if things don't fall into place it can all be spent on the bench.
 

Major college football is headed to all out, officially sanctioned free agency. Once the lawsuit dust settles, say in 10 years, the major programs will be paying players, players will be free to move to different teams, and may not even need to enroll in class, who knows. Will be interesting to see.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Major college football is headed to all out, officially sanctioned free agency. Once the lawsuit dust settles, say in 10 years, the major programs will be paying players, players will be free to move to different teams, and may not even need to enroll in class, who knows. Will be interesting to see.
Click to expand...

The arguments being made by the pro pay camp could be easily squashed with some mandatory reductions in practice time, etc. I think programs like MN would likely bow out of the top tier of football if your scenario comes to pass as I can’t see the destruction of all the non-revs to pay for it, the Title IX implications, etc. end of an era. Sad.
 

denguegopher said:
Well said. This is how I see it too. You only have 4 or 5 years of college to play ball and if things don't fall into place it can all be spent on the bench.
Click to expand...

Not just a small window but for all you know as a QB the coaching staff walks and the new guys want a different kind of QB.... that's kinda ****ty.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
The arguments being made by the pro pay camp could be easily squashed with some mandatory reductions in practice time, etc.
Click to expand...

The NCAA will do whatever it can, and has already taken some steps (unlimited gifts of food to athletes, guaranteed scholarships, FCOA added on to allowed scholarship values), but at the end of the day, I think the case will mainly be judged on the history and merits of amateurism itself.

And, as I think not many people know or realize, amateurism does not have a good history. It was invented by the high-born in England so that they had a reason to not have to compete in athletics against factory workers. It is not any kind of noble thing, that some might have assumed or believed.

Pompous Elitist said:
I think programs like MN would likely bow out of the top tier of football if your scenario comes to pass as I can’t see the destruction of all the non-revs to pay for it, the Title IX implications, etc. end of an era. Sad.
Click to expand...

We'd have to get a look at the total costs and weigh against the likely decreases in revenue.

Would Minnesota alumni accept playing football in a "second class"? Even if that meant that the Big Ten teams who did this would essentially become something similar to what Ivy League football is now? It is an interesting question. You could legit look at adding schools like U Chicago, Washington U, etc. if it went to a DIII model.
 

Minnesota has had a crazy amount of 2 and 3 star QBs transfer in the last 10 years as well.
 

FredCoxRocks said:
Minnesota has had a crazy amount of 2 and 3 star QBs transfer in the last 10 years as well.
Click to expand...

Yep

Foreman
Shortell
Nelson
Streveler
Roden-Mckinzy
Croft

Plus guys like Perra who was a walk-on and Demarcus Williams and Donovahn Jones who started off at QB although they are a little different. Conner Krizancic transferred too to
play QB at Ohio.

Really makes me appreciate Connor Rhoda and Seth Green for not transferring and sticking it out.
 




Gophers_4life said:
The NCAA will do whatever it can, and has already taken some steps (unlimited gifts of food to athletes, guaranteed scholarships, FCOA added on to allowed scholarship values), but at the end of the day, I think the case will mainly be judged on the history and merits of amateurism itself.

And, as I think not many people know or realize, amateurism does not have a good history. It was invented by the high-born in England so that they had a reason to not have to compete in athletics against factory workers. It is not any kind of noble thing, that some might have assumed or believed.



We'd have to get a look at the total costs and weigh against the likely decreases in revenue.

Would Minnesota alumni accept playing football in a "second class"? Even if that meant that the Big Ten teams who did this would essentially become something similar to what Ivy League football is now? It is an interesting question. You could legit look at adding schools like U Chicago, Washington U, etc. if it went to a DIII model.
Click to expand...

This is the middle ground of the debate that most people don't want to deal with. It's grey
College FB and BBall players absolutely benefit from scholarships and all they entail
The NCAA absolutely profits from those athletes and is actually exploiting them in many ways by not paying them cash money
College FB and BB players unquestionably do not receive the full value of the education their scholarship pays for because of their obligations, restrictions and other things that limit their academic and social options
At the same time college athletes receive other experiences in their sports with their teams that also provide value
 

die hard gopher said:
Really makes me appreciate Connor Rhoda and Seth Green for not transferring and sticking it out.
Click to expand...

Yep. I was pretty skeptical of the wildcat at the beginning of the year but the way we used it and the way Seth made it work were awesome. And kudos to him for being flexible to finding a role and helping the team.
 

Agree with what's been said. If you think you're an NFL guy and the guy ahead of you is also an NFL guy, tough to put all your eggs into one year of starting (ie Fields with Fromm) and trying to learn the full pace of the game on the fly and impressing enough to get drafted.
 

Gophers_4life said:
The NCAA will do whatever it can, and has already taken some steps (unlimited gifts of food to athletes, guaranteed scholarships, FCOA added on to allowed scholarship values), but at the end of the day, I think the case will mainly be judged on the history and merits of amateurism itself.

And, as I think not many people know or realize, amateurism does not have a good history. It was invented by the high-born in England so that they had a reason to not have to compete in athletics against factory workers. It is not any kind of noble thing, that some might have assumed or believed.



We'd have to get a look at the total costs and weigh against the likely decreases in revenue.

Would Minnesota alumni accept playing football in a "second class"? Even if that meant that the Big Ten teams who did this would essentially become something similar to what Ivy League football is now? It is an interesting question. You could legit look at adding schools like U Chicago, Washington U, etc. if it went to a DIII model.
Click to expand...

Come on now.

To the second part, without a salary cap system schools like MN will be blown out of the water instantaneously.

I agree the current system is gross but there is absolutely nothing keeping the players from forming a league outside of the school umbrella and having more control of the gate and associated financials and tv contracts. Unfortunately history has shown these leagues (other than the NFL) tend not to draw well and the salaries are low.

I don’t think the current system will change much other than the practice time limits I described earlier. Perhaps the new pro league will be an outlet for guys not wanting to play school for 3 years.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Come on now.

To the second part, without a salary cap system schools like MN will be blown out of the water instantaneously.

I agree the current system is gross but there is absolutely nothing keeping the players from forming a league outside of the school umbrella and having more control of the gate and associated financials and tv contracts. Unfortunately history has shown these leagues (other than the NFL) tend not to draw well and the salaries are low.

I don’t think the current system will change much other than the practice time limits I described earlier. Perhaps the new pro league will be an outlet for guys not wanting to play school for 3 years.
Click to expand...

It would be nice in theory to give these kids a different route, much like the NBA is doing with the G-League. The only downside to that is the differences in body development. A 18 year old kid going up against a 7 year NFL vet might not work out to well. The NCAA knows there's no other legit option for football, so I'd bet they have zero concerns about anything. Basketball on the other hand is a different story. There are kids that could graduate high school and step onto a NBA court and compete right away. The G-League has also made the salaries much more appealing, while having almost every NBA team own one. Its basically a starting block for a NBA minor league.
 

Someone had posted on twitter a few weeks back that the best plan for a highly rated QB is to go to lower end school where they will easily be the starter. Start three years, then grad transfer to a power school for their final season.
Get the most playing time, don't have to sit the bench, and get the spotlight in the final season transferring to an Oklahoma.
 

Face The Facts said:
Someone had posted on twitter a few weeks back that the best plan for a highly rated QB is to go to lower end school where they will easily be the starter. Start three years, then grad transfer to a power school for their final season.
Get the most playing time, don't have to sit the bench, and get the spotlight in the final season transferring to an Oklahoma.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure you have to transfer to a power school if the NFL is the main goal, which for a highly rated QB I'm assuming thats the end goal. Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, Mitch Trubisky, Daniel Jones, Carson Wentz, Jared Goff, and some other that could fit. Thats just from recent years. There are a lot of teams outside of the power schools that can develop a QB. It's just kids wanting to commit to a big helmet school and get all the love.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Come on now.

To the second part, without a salary cap system schools like MN will be blown out of the water instantaneously.

I agree the current system is gross but there is absolutely nothing keeping the players from forming a league outside of the school umbrella and having more control of the gate and associated financials and tv contracts. Unfortunately history has shown these leagues (other than the NFL) tend not to draw well and the salaries are low.

I don’t think the current system will change much other than the practice time limits I described earlier. Perhaps the new pro league will be an outlet for guys not wanting to play school for 3 years.
Click to expand...

This whole discussion could be another great thread so I'll try to keep it short... Due to the items bolded in your post, my take on this is that the NCAA will never pay athletes outside of the normal scholarships/stipends. The monetary value in the whole system lies with the universities' brands and the huge media empire that the NCAA built; without those, there is no profit. Players, for the most part, are interchangeable in the system (I don't say this lightly and empathize with athletes). I know I would much rather watch a non-scholarship football team at a school I follow than watch some minor league. There are already two comparable models for this...baseball and hockey. Both have minor/developmental leagues yet I'm guessing college baseball and hockey have a stronger fan base.
 

If the NCAA loses the lawsuit ... it doesn't have a choice. It would be illegal for them to artificially restrict monetary player compensation to "only" the value of a scholarship. States wouldn't be allowed to make laws banning college athletes from being paid, either. It would be in violation of federal law. You'd have to get federal law makers to make new laws -- not saying that is impossible.


The NFL does not want to pay for a farm system. The NCAA does that, and quite effectively. Yes there have been attempts to make other professional football leagues over the years, both indoors and outdoors, and as far as I know none of them have ever sustained success. I do recall a time period a few years ago when the major indoor football league even made it on broadcast TV. But it didn't stick.

Not saying it could never happen. Maybe the NFL will give a G-league a chance. But I don't see why they'd change their minds when I'm quite certain at the least most of the SEC, southern ACC, and southern Big XII schools would be more than happen to pay football players to maintain what they have now.
 

Panthadad2 said:
This whole discussion could be another great thread so I'll try to keep it short... Due to the items bolded in your post, my take on this is that the NCAA will never pay athletes outside of the normal scholarships/stipends. The monetary value in the whole system lies with the universities' brands and the huge media empire that the NCAA built; without those, there is no profit. Players, for the most part, are interchangeable in the system (I don't say this lightly and empathize with athletes). I know I would much rather watch a non-scholarship football team at a school I follow than watch some minor league. There are already two comparable models for this...baseball and hockey. Both have minor/developmental leagues yet I'm guessing college baseball and hockey have a stronger fan base.
Click to expand...

You're exactly right. This is the point I've made time and again and all of the "pay the players!!!" advocates have ignored (because they have no rebuttal) - if the idea of a pro football league paying 18-20 year-olds a good-to-great salary were a viable business idea, someone would be doing it already. Smart people with investable capital will never miss an opportunity to turn a profit.
 

dpodoll68 said:
You're exactly right. This is the point I've made time and again and all of the "pay the players!!!" advocates have ignored (because they have no rebuttal) - if the idea of a pro football league paying 18-20 year-olds a good-to-great salary were a viable business idea, someone would be doing it already. Smart people with investable capital will never miss an opportunity to turn a profit.
Click to expand...

What you’re ignoring, perhaps on purpose, is the fundamental aspect of why we’re even able to have this debate in the first place: college football is massively successful because fans care so much about the schools’ brands, in addition to the players. Therefore, CFB can and would continue to generate the same amounts of revenue while paying players. Simply, the profits would be less ... but that’s not a concern to schools, which already burn the cash anyway to make it seem non-profit.
 

Gophers_4life said:
CFB can and would continue to generate the same amounts of revenue while paying players. Simply, the profits would be less ... but that’s not a concern to schools, which already burn the cash anyway to make it seem non-profit.
Click to expand...

I said that I wouldn't respond to you anymore, but this post is so laughably wrong and off-base (as are almost all of your posts) that I couldn't let it slide.

https://www.apnews.com/5bf6e16950ec4de89117c206fff8786a

UConn won’t rule out cutting some sports to close budget gap

"UConn won’t rule out eliminating some sports to close a more than $40 million gap in its athletic department budget."

"UConn reported that total generated revenue from sports last year totaled $40.4 million, while expenses came in at $80.9 million."

"Football lost $8.7 million."

---

Few athletic departments in the country turn a profit. Many football programs turn a profit, but virtually all have their entire profit (and then some) consumed by supporting their non-revenue sports. There's no "cash burning" or whatever other nonsense term you want to make up.
 

Gophers_4life said:
What you’re ignoring, perhaps on purpose, is the fundamental aspect of why we’re even able to have this debate in the first place: college football is massively successful because fans care so much about the schools’ brands, in addition to the players. Therefore, CFB can and would continue to generate the same amounts of revenue while paying players. Simply, the profits would be less ... but that’s not a concern to schools, which already burn the cash anyway to make it seem non-profit.
Click to expand...
Cut college football revenue and you are cutting all the non-revenue sports.

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk
 

Panthadad2 said:
This whole discussion could be another great thread so I'll try to keep it short... Due to the items bolded in your post, my take on this is that the NCAA will never pay athletes outside of the normal scholarships/stipends. The monetary value in the whole system lies with the universities' brands and the huge media empire that the NCAA built; without those, there is no profit. Players, for the most part, are interchangeable in the system (I don't say this lightly and empathize with athletes). I know I would much rather watch a non-scholarship football team at a school I follow than watch some minor league. There are already two comparable models for this...baseball and hockey. Both have minor/developmental leagues yet I'm guessing college baseball and hockey have a stronger fan base.
Click to expand...

I would guess minor league baseball and hockey as a whole have more attendance than college baseball and hockey (haven't looked it up though). But the college fans are probably more loyal. And I am huge college hockey fan.

Edit: From the numbers I could find, minor league baseball had total attendance of 37 million last year. I couldn't find total numbers for college baseball, but I'm guessing they are not even close to 37 million (maybe not even 5 or 10 million). Minor league hockey seems to hover in the 7-10 million range per year. College hockey last year was around 2 million.

Sent from my RS988 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

dpodoll68 said:
Few athletic departments in the country turn a profit. Many football programs turn a profit, but virtually all have their entire profit (and then some) consumed by supporting their non-revenue sports.
Click to expand...

Well there you go then!
 

Word said:
Cut college football revenue and you are cutting all the non-revenue sports.
Click to expand...

There is nothing objectivly, or even subjectively, wrong with club sports. So long as Title IX is satisfied, and it is easy to prove that it is, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with having the majority of sports being club sports.
 

Gophers_4life said:
There is nothing objectivly, or even subjectively, wrong with club sports. So long as Title IX is satisfied, and it is easy to prove that it is, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with having the majority of sports being club sports.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with this, but even if I did, I'm not sure the courts would count a club sport to qualify for title IX if the other (revenue) sports weren't. Or are you advocating all sports become club sports?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom