NCAA to Allow CFB & CBB Players Transfer without Sitting Out?

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[CritMark]

On 1/18/2018 at 6:22 PM, Buffalo716 said:

 

Because you don't make a commitment to a coach.  You make it to the school. Sure, a coach SHOULD be a HUGE deciding factor ...

 

But the coach isn't giving him a free education... the university is

 

when you sign that LOI you are making a commitment to the school. That includes learning, growing, and overcoming adversity, which includes coaching changes. 

 

Its a right for a player to transfer but it shouldn't be glorified. The year wait makes it a serious transaction for a team. 

 

Life isn't fair so neither is NCAA regulations. Coaches have advantages over student athletes as far as leaving 

 

but college basketball and football will get really hairy fast if you can start poaching other players without a transfer window

 

just sounds like easy pickings for the top dogs

 

I am 100% for a player choosing to transfer. I did. I also had to redshirt and wait a year 

 

i really hope I'm not sounding too harsh, I just think honoring commitments is huge in life and student athletes have a huge commitment when they go to a school

 

I agree with you in concept but I don't think it holds up to today's reality.  I seems to me that a lot of top athletes are selecting schools based almost exclusively for their football/basketball program.  Should they is a different question.

 

Look at the mess at Tennessee.  It was handled so badly that several coaches said thanks but no thanks.  Why should the players have to suffer the consequences when a coach they went there to play for leaves and the institution messes up the replacement process so badly that the school ends up with its 4th or 5th choice as head coach? 

 

Why should a player be stuck at a school that changed coaches and the new system is totally inconsistent with that players skill set?  You you could argue that it is an opportunity to show you can prosper in any system but that doesn't hold any value in some circumstances.  Say I am a pure pocket passer (Josh Rosen from UCLA) and the new coach wants to run a Louisville style offense that requires a QB like Lamar Jackson or Deshaun Watson.  Rosen does not work in that scenario and it is likely the new coach would recruit a kid that fits his scheme.  Why should Rosen have to sit out a year?  Worse yet, why should Rosen's growth as a pocket passer be compromised by forcing him to try to adapt to a system that will not serve him well in college or in the NFL?

 

BTW - I think this is primarily an issue for Football.  Basketball with the one and done rule means the best players would have a much smaller window of impact.

[Buffalo716]

1 minute ago, CritMark said:

 

I agree with you in concept but I don't think it holds up to today's reality.  I seems to me that a lot of top athletes are selecting schools based almost exclusively for their football/basketball program.  Should they is a different question.

 

Look at the mess at Tennessee.  It was handled so badly that several coaches said thanks but no thanks.  Why should the players have to suffer the consequences when a coach they went there to play for leaves and the institution messes up the replacement process so badly that the school ends up with its 4th or 5th choice as head coach? 

 

Why should a player be stuck at a school that changed coaches and the new system is totally inconsistent with that players skill set?  You you could argue that it is an opportunity to show you can prosper in any system but that doesn't hold any value in some circumstances.  Say I am a pure pocket passer (Josh Rosen from UCLA) and the new coach wants to run a Louisville style offense that requires a QB like Lamar Jackson or Deshaun Watson.  Rosen does not work in that scenario and it is likely the new coach would recruit a kid that fits his scheme.  Why should Rosen have to sit out a year?  Worse yet, why should Rosen's growth as a pocket passer be compromised by forcing him to try to adapt to a system that will not serve him well in college or in the NFL?

 

BTW - I think this is primarily an issue for Football.  Basketball with the one and done rule means the best players would have a much smaller window of impact.

There are definitely times I wouldn't hold it against a student athlete to transfer 

 

im just talking on the slippery slope.

 

UB develops a stud WR who is going into his JR year. Ohio State needs a WR... OSU poaches WR off UBs roster with a scholarship offer

 

thats the stuff I'm talking about 

[CritMark]

9 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

There are definitely times I wouldn't hold it against a student athlete to transfer 

 

im just talking on the slippery slope.

 

UB develops a stud WR who is going into his JR year. Ohio State needs a WR... OSU poaches WR off UBs roster with a scholarship offer

 

thats the stuff I'm talking about 

 

A very legitimate concern. 

 

Here's an idea that popped in to my head that is likely a bad one as I have not spent any time thinking it through.  What if the restriction isn't in the transfer but the scholarship?  Perhaps limit the amount of the scholarship offer to an equivalent 75% or 50% for the first year of the transfer. 

 

Just a thought.

[Buffalo716]

2 minutes ago, CritMark said:

 

A very legitimate concern. 

 

Here's an idea that popped in to my head that is likely a bad one as I have not spent any time thinking it through.  What if the restriction isn't in the transfer but the scholarship?  Perhaps limit the amount of the scholarship offer to an equivalent 75% or 50% for the first year of the transfer. 

 

Just a thought.

 

Thats really not a bad start but their are a lot of variables at play.

 

a kid transferring because his coach left and he's coming off his freshmen year.. I'm cool with that 

 

but the stud JR WR at UB or Toledo that gets poached off their roster for Ohio ST or Michigan should definitely not be rewarded 

 

The year wait really is a deterrent for player poaching 

[JohnC]

On ‎1‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 8:56 PM, Buffalo716 said:

This is a slippery slope. Sure there are some legit tranfer reasons where a kid shouldn't have to sit...

 

but

 

this is the next step for Big time programs to scoop up the best players from mid major programs

 

a kid at UB tears it up as a freshmen and sophomore, is on his way to becoming a 1st round pick... them Duke or Kansas or Kentucky offers him a scholarship and he transfers without having to sit

 

this will happen to Mid majors like Bonnie's or UB

There is another twist to your view. If a player is anchored to the bench in a high powered program with a load of more talent coming in with the next recruiting class then that player would have an incentive to transfer to a mid-major program and get immediate playing time. Will the top talent at the mid-major have an incentive to bolt to a higher program? Not necessarily, because those programs are so loaded that the big fish in the small pond can turn out to be big  fish lost in the surplus of the bigger pond. 

 

Why is it fair for a coach to recruit a player and then bolt without the player having an option to leave? In that circumstance of a coaching departure that player could be lost in the shuffle of the new staff that wants to run a system on offense/defense in which he isn't suited for. 

[Buffalo716]

4 minutes ago, JohnC said:

There is another twist to your view. If a player is anchored to the bench in a high powered program with a load of more talent coming in with the next recruiting class then that player would have an incentive to transfer to a mid-major program and get immediate playing time. Will the top talent at the mid-major have an incentive to bolt to a higher program? Not necessarily, because those programs are so loaded that the big fish in the small pond can turn out to be big  fish lost in the surplus of the bigger pond. 

 

Why is it fair for a coach to recruit a player and then bolt without the player having an option to leave? In that circumstance of a coaching departure that player could be lost in the shuffle of the new staff that wants to run a system on offense/defense in which he isn't suited for. 

 

You certainly make valid points.

 

I also made a point that players do commit to a school first and a coach second.

 

its a commitment and certainly a coach is a HUGE factor but the school is giving them a scholarship and making a commitment to them for 4 years as well

 

there are always exceptions like a coach bolting and I don't hold it against them for wanting to transfer ...

 

but as of now they should have to wait a year and redshirt like everyone else before them. If they change it , I just hope it doesn't start poaching 

[CritMark]

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

Thats really not a bad start but their are a lot of variables at play.

 

a kid transferring because his coach left and he's coming off his freshmen year.. I'm cool with that 

 

but the stud JR WR at UB or Toledo that gets poached off their roster for Ohio ST or Michigan should definitely not be rewarded 

 

The year wait really is a deterrent for player poaching 

 

Obviously the devil is in the details.  I would add to freshmen any athlete not on scholarship.  Expanding on my original idea, any athlete on a 50% or less scholarship can transfer without a wait.  Look at the Mayfield situation.  While the stories vary on what did or did not get communicated or was going to be communicated, the fact remains that Mayfield was never on scholarship at TTU.  If a school didn't think it important enough to get any athlete on scholarship, why can't they move at any time without penalty.

 

In absence of a scholarship, what commitment has the school made to the athlete?

Edited January 30, 2018 by CritMark

[Buffalo716]

9 minutes ago, CritMark said:

 

Obviously the devil is in the details.  I would add to freshmen any athlete not on scholarship.  Expanding on my original idea, any athlete on a 50% or less scholarship can transfer without a wait.  Look at the Mayfield situation.  While the stories vary on what did or did not get communicated or was going to be communicated, the fact remains that Mayfield was never on scholarship at TTU.  If a school didn't think it important enough to get any athlete on scholarship, why can't they move at any time without penalty.

 

In absence of a scholarship, what committeemen has the school made to the athlete?

 

Completely agree...

 

Baker Mayfield should have never had to sit out a year...Tech never gave him what he deserved 

 

and he should have been allowed to play

 

But that Redshirt year probably did help Baker improve a lot even if it shouldn't have been mandated 

[CritMark]

41 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

Completely agree...

 

Baker Mayfield should have never had to sit out a year...Tech never gave him what he deserved 

 

and he should have been allowed to play

 

But that Redshirt year probably did help Baker improve a lot even if it shouldn't have been mandated 

 

Absolutely agree, but that is the risk the player has to accept.  The grass is not always greener.  If the decision to change schools turns out badly, the player can only look in the mirror for answers.

 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

You certainly make valid points.

 

I also made a point that players do commit to a school first and a coach second.

 

its a commitment and certainly a coach is a HUGE factor but the school is giving them a scholarship and making a commitment to them for 4 years as well

 

there are always exceptions like a coach bolting and I don't hold it against them for wanting to transfer ...

 

but as of now they should have to wait a year and redshirt like everyone else before them. If they change it , I just hope it doesn't start poaching 

The commitment from the football office is not a commitment to the player, and never has been. The player is a replaceable piece subordinate to the program.  In the recruiting process there is a lot of serenading of the touted potential recruits. However, it is not unusual for a big time program such as Ohio State and Bama where that once touted recruit is behind the next four top tier players recruited for the same position. As in the pro game coaches , including coordinators on both sides of the ball, are constantly being changed. A qb suited for one system may become obsolete when the new OC changes the system more suitable for another qb. That player who is now an odd fit is not going to play through no fault of his own. 

 

If you were an English Literature major at one school but wanted to transfer to another school for personal reasons the student wouldn't be penalized. It is a personal choice. The concept of loyalty is a very fluid concept. Employers are not always loyal to workers and workers usually aren't permanently loyal to the company they started off with. Times change. The reality of the market today that also applies to the sports arena is dramatically different from the old days. 

 

Let's look at the player movement of players in the NFL. It is a fast forward cycle of constant change. Players decide to move on and teams decide to jettison players with no sentiment factored into the equation. The landscape is simply different. Movement is a fact of life in the school system as it is in the market place. The issue isn't so much whether it is better or not as it is simply an inescapable part of the reality of the changed landscape. 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[/dev/null]

Something like this is a double edged sword

 

The big schools will trip over each other to snatch up any breakout small/mid player which would hurt the smaller programs.

 

Meanwhile those 4 or 5 star blue chip prospects that sign with a major program that are red shirted their freshman year and the following year are competing for second or third string might let their eye wander to a lesser program where they could compete for a starting job

 

In either case, transfers should be a one time opportunity