Paul Johnson on proposed transfer changes: 'I think it's nuts'

[MikeJackets1967]

If you think the recruiting advantage for the factories is big now wait until they can openly recruit every d1 football player. This is an obsurd idea.

Bingo

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

It's unclear to me how a coach could control a GPA, because if he had that much influence with the faculty then the faculty should have their rear ends collectively tossed from the school, and I think there are NCAA rules against such contacts. But: the GPA should not come into play at all. The simple and effective standard across all universities, from tough to easy, is "in good standing". That's all that should count. It means the player is passing and is not a thug. That leaves GT responsible for its students, Georgia for its students, etc. But sure, changing schools should not cost a "student athlete" -- stop laughing -- a year or one quarter of his or her eligibility for making a error of choice at the age of 17 or 18. (Johnson's ezample is perfect: often they view a transfer to a major college that has never had an interest in them. Dreams die hard.)

[FLOAT_RIGHT][/FLOAT_RIGHT]

Mandatory meetings, work outs etc, that could significantly deplete study time in a day. The downside being poorer grades and possible ineligibility. But the coaches could throttle things up or back as needed.

 

[knoxjacket]

If you think the recruiting advantage for the factories is big now wait until they can openly recruit every d1 football player. This is an obsurd idea.

So competitiveness is more important to you than student-athletes finding the school that fits them best?

 

[Skeptic]

So competitiveness is more important to you than student-athletes finding the school that fits them best?

Actually I think you are arguing a separate issue. He fears/sees factories cherry picking the best from college rosters, you assume the new school would fit them best, when actually the new school doesn't care one way or the other: they want the talent. (But sure, wouldn't competition be important? Don't compete and lose your fan base.

 

[redmule]

Does it mean that uga coaches would make their 5* players take some real classes to keep their GPA down? More than likely it means the profs would hand out B's rather than A's in their Housing classes.

 

[gtwcf]

Not sure but I guess you are saying a coach could take a player out of study, and I don't think so. As for the rest, boy, youse guys have a real thing for UNC. It warps the whole outlook and I worry about you.

I could see it happening. And D1 Athletes are highly scheduled in their time. I think this graphic went up during one of the Army-Navy games?

You throw one thing off and the study time goes down is my anticipation.....

 

[RonJohn]

Actually I think you are arguing a separate issue. He fears/sees factories cherry picking the best from college rosters, you assume the new school would fit them best, when actually the new school doesn't care one way or the other: they want the talent. (But sure, wouldn't competition be important? Don't compete and lose your fan base.

I can't speak for KnoxJacket, but I believe that he was trying to ask if athletic competitiveness is more important that a kid getting into an academic school that is the correct fit. There are people who believe that if a kid graduates and goes to a different school for grad school because he can't get into grad school at his undergrad school, he should be banned from playing at the new school. The belief seems to be that once a kid starts playing sports for one school, he belongs to that school. I believe I have even read a comment from one person who said that a football player shouldn't be allowed to enroll in grad school at another school even if he didn't play football there.

The real solution would be for NCAA athletes, on a school basis, to be treated just like any other student. There are no rules that prevent a student at GT from transferring to another school, even the mutt school. What the NCAA should do is ensure that the transfer is for a personal or academic reason, not just for athletics. What the NCAA could do is not allow any special treatment for athlete enrollment. Such as if the athlete can't get into the school as an academic transfer, they can't play sports. That would allow good students to transfer, but prevent bad students from transferring for athletic reasons. For a good student, how could the NCAA prove whether they transferred because they preferred the school, or because they wanted more playing time?

 

[MikeJackets1967]

Actually I think you are arguing a separate issue. He fears/sees factories cherry picking the best from college rosters, you assume the new school would fit them best, when actually the new school doesn't care one way or the other: they want the talent. (But sure, wouldn't competition be important? Don't compete and lose your fan base.

 

[knoxjacket]

I can't speak for KnoxJacket, but I believe that he was trying to ask if athletic competitiveness is more important that a kid getting into an academic school that is the correct fit. There are people who believe that if a kid graduates and goes to a different school for grad school because he can't get into grad school at his undergrad school, he should be banned from playing at the new school. The belief seems to be that once a kid starts playing sports for one school, he belongs to that school. I believe I have even read a comment from one person who said that a football player shouldn't be allowed to enroll in grad school at another school even if he didn't play football there.

The real solution would be for NCAA athletes, on a school basis, to be treated just like any other student. There are no rules that prevent a student at GT from transferring to another school, even the mutt school. What the NCAA should do is ensure that the transfer is for a personal or academic reason, not just for athletics. What the NCAA could do is not allow any special treatment for athlete enrollment. Such as if the athlete can't get into the school as an academic transfer, they can't play sports. That would allow good students to transfer, but prevent bad students from transferring for athletic reasons. For a good student, how could the NCAA prove whether they transferred because they preferred the school, or because they wanted more playing time?

This is exactly what I’m saying.

Right now we are punishing kids for making a bad decision when they are 17-18 because we fear it will mess up the balance of football competition. How screwed up is that?

 

[Lurkerjack]

Everyone is talking about the kid riding the bench who thinks he is better than the starter wanting to transfer. Or the kid who got yelled at by coach and had to run laps. What about the breakout freshman rb at a school like ecu? All of a sudden he thinks he is sec worthy. All the lower tier schools best players will want to transfer to the upper tier. The non starters from the upper tier schools want playing time. EVERYONE will think about transferring. The gap will widen. Think Yankees vs Padres. Will the sec be allowed to actively recruit the best players from the lower tier schools? How in the world would we be able to police that? This would be a free for all mess.

 

[knoxjacket]

Everyone is talking about the kid riding the bench who thinks he is better than the starter wanting to transfer. Or the kid who got yelled at by coach and had to run laps. What about the breakout freshman rb at a school like ecu? All of a sudden he thinks he is sec worthy. All the lower tier schools best players will want to transfer to the upper tier. The non starters from the upper tier schools want playing time. EVERYONE will think about transferring. The gap will widen. Think Yankees vs Padres. Will the sec be allowed to actively recruit the best players from the lower tier schools? How in the world would we be able to police that? This would be a free for all mess.

I think the parity argument is irrelevant, but for the sake of debate every transfer that an SEC program takes is an elite prospect freed up for other programs. This could potentially improve our recruiting.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Not sure but I guess you are saying a coach could take a player out of study, and I don't think so. As for the rest, boy, youse guys have a real thing for UNC. It warps the whole outlook and I worry about you.

It’s not just them, it’s the NCAA who let them skate while pounding us for far less. And the guy in charge of investigating us was, you guessed it, a Tarhole.

 

[gtg970g]

This is exactly what I’m saying.

Right now we are punishing kids for making a bad decision when they are 17-18 because we fear it will mess up the balance of football competition. How screwed up is that?

If academic fit is the primary concern then what's the detriment of sitting out a year in your sport? If the athlete has a redshirt year available they won't even loose a year of eligibility.

 

[Eastman]

Does it mean that uga coaches would make their 5* players take some real classes to keep their GPA down? More than likely it means the profs would hand out B's rather than A's in their Housing classes.

I wouldn’t think that Uga coaches would need to make any additional effortt to keep the players grades down other than insuring accurate testing results

 

[RonJohn]

Everyone is talking about the kid riding the bench who thinks he is better than the starter wanting to transfer. Or the kid who got yelled at by coach and had to run laps. What about the breakout freshman rb at a school like ecu? All of a sudden he thinks he is sec worthy. All the lower tier schools best players will want to transfer to the upper tier. The non starters from the upper tier schools want playing time. EVERYONE will think about transferring. The gap will widen. Think Yankees vs Padres. Will the sec be allowed to actively recruit the best players from the lower tier schools? How in the world would we be able to police that? This would be a free for all mess.

What about a kid from a rural area who spends one year in business school in a large city(Such as GT). After that year, he decides that he would rather study agriculture and have a career in designing or managing farms. He applies to and is accepted by Auburn without any intervention from the athletic department.(no reduction in qualifications, no speed up of transfer paperwork, etc.) Why should that kid be punished because he made a legitimate career choice change?

I understand the concern that factory schools would try to poach the best players from non-factory schools. I think the best way to address those concerns is by putting limitations on the athletic programs instead of the players. Ideas such as:

• Do not allow the athletic department to change any transfer admissions requirements or processes.(No special admits, not fast tracking).
• Do not allow recruitment of undergraduate players at all. The player would have to first apply and be accepted before the athletic program could talk to him.
• If a program accepts an undergraduate transfer, tie that scholarship to that player until the player's eligibility is fully used even if he quits, transfers again, or goes pro. So a school who accepts a RS-FR from another school with three years eligibility remaining would lose a scholarship for two years if that player goes pro after one year at the second school.

There would need to be some limitations on the player, such as transfers during the season. That probably wouldn't affect football since the season is all during the same semester. But if could affect basketball since it spans two semesters. However, the general idea is for the NCAA to establish rules, monitor the rules, and enforce the rules against the athletic departments and teams instead of against student-athletes.

 

[Skeptic]

If academic fit is the primary concern then what's the detriment of sitting out a year in your sport? If the athlete has a redshirt year available they won't even loose a year of eligibility.

Shouldn't make any difference what the reason is. From the grass is greener to playing time to just because. There's enough populist in me, just enough, to think that is none of anybody's business. Why would it be? ("Why did you take $100 from your checking account? What did you use it for? Do this often, do you?") It is nobody's business. You just casually gave away 25% of a player's eligibility to compete. For no reason other than, as the NCAA, you can. It is punitive and I'd even stretch it far enough to say blackmail: "Leave me, " the Mob says, "and I will make you pay." What's the difference?

 

[RonJohn]

Shouldn't make any difference what the reason is. From the grass is greener to playing time to just because. There's enough populist in me, just enough, to think that is none of anybody's business. Why would it be? ("Why did you take $100 from your checking account? What did you use it for? Do this often, do you?") It is nobody's business. You just casually gave away 25% of a player's eligibility to compete. For no reason other than, as the NCAA, you can. It is punitive and I'd even stretch it far enough to say blackmail: "Leave me, " the Mob says, "and I will make you pay." What's the difference?

If a non-athlete student transfers schools, does anybody question his reasons? It could be because his girlfriend goes to the other school. It could be because the school is closer to his parents. It could be because the other school is in a marijuana friendly state. It could be because the educational opportunity at the other school is a better fit for him. If he applies to transfer and is accepted, there is no outside organization that punishes him for it.

Also to the question you were answering, if a student transfers for purely educational reasons, he will probably graduate on time or close to on time. If he loses a year of sports playing, he probably won't be around to make up his redshirt year so he will indeed lose it.

 

[bke1984]

IMO these arguments are silly. The NCAA doesn't restrict kids from transferring and they do not restrict the destination school from putting the kid on scholarship immediately. What they restrict is the kid from playing immediately. I think it's a very fair rule that actually forces the kids to weigh out what is important to them. If it's truly for academic purposes then I don't think they'd think twice about making the switch and losing the year...if it's purely for the athletic aspect then they weight out whether its worth it for them to sit out a year to play elsewhere. You can already go down a division and play immediately...doesn't happen as much in basketball, but we've seen it in football a few times over the last few years.

I do think this is going to cause the factory schools to pull from the rest of D1. Under the radar players that turn out to be studs are going to switch to the bigger schools for the chance to win titles. If you don't have to sit out then why the hell not...it's going to look like the grad transfer stuff from the last several years.

I wouldn't be opposed to making them sit out a year, but retain the year of eligibility...i.e. you sit out next year but then you can play an extra year at the end of your career...maybe as a one-time thing. Maybe that doesn't punish the kid, but still preserves the intent of the NCAA's current rule.

 

[Skeptic]

IMO these arguments are silly. The NCAA doesn't restrict kids from transferring and they do not restrict the destination school from putting the kid on scholarship immediately. What they restrict is the kid from playing immediately. I think it's a very fair rule that actually forces the kids to weigh out what is important to them. If it's truly for academic purposes then I don't think they'd think twice about making the switch and losing the year...if it's purely for the athletic aspect then they weight out whether its worth it for them to sit out a year to play elsewhere. You can already go down a division and play immediately...doesn't happen as much in basketball, but we've seen it in football a few times over the last few years.

I do think this is going to cause the factory schools to pull from the rest of D1. Under the radar players that turn out to be studs are going to switch to the bigger schools for the chance to win titles. If you don't have to sit out then why the hell not...it's going to look like the grad transfer stuff from the last several years.

I wouldn't be opposed to making them sit out a year, but retain the year of eligibility...i.e. you sit out next year but then you can play an extra year at the end of your career...maybe as a one-time thing. Maybe that doesn't punish the kid, but still preserves the intent of the NCAA's current rule.

I hired a guy once with the best intentions, his and mine. Great interviews, personal interaction, skill set, maturity, name it. On paper I hit a home run. Moved him halfway across the country -- wife, baby boy, household -- paid a small signing bonus with no repayment demand since I thought that poisoned the well, some personal and family per diem and he hit the ground running; we both scored on the deal. Less than eight months later he came in to say he was leaving. Had done exemplary work and at least to me and others had no complaints about the company or the work we were doing. He and his wife, it seems, did not like the South. Everything else was fine. It just was not home and what they were used to and as they were to discover, wanted. He offered to return the signing bonus but that made my company look awful cheap. He tried, it didn't work, he left. Now explain to me why we can hold power over an 18 year old kid making the first big decision of his life and who has given the university his best effort in return for the scholarship money, and he adult walks? Substitute "coach" for "adult" and it is more mysterious. If you want to argue he should not play immediately, I'd object for the purity of it. But then, okay. He gets four years and delaying a year makes another a) hesitate or b) plan ahead at least. Fairness is not the issue. It is just not right. And that is the issue.

 

[Lurkerjack]

This is one of those “unintended consequences” deals. At first blush of course anyone should be allowed to transfer whenever they want to who ever will have them without penalty. But, as my earlier post stated, I think that would result in a free for all mess. The administration of it alone would be a nightmare: al, Uga, factory X would all hire extra staff to deal with it, ncaa would have to police whatever the rules are, more compliance on the schools part, etc.

Bke1984 nailed it for me. Anyone can transfer already.