Your thoughts on the transfer system?

[BCJacket]

There should be 4yr and 1yr commitments. Kids who graduate early can release themselves and school from a 4 yr deal. Kids on a 1yr can transfer or be cut with no penalty each yr.

Wow, this is a really good idea. Kids on a 4 year commitment get a scholarship from the school no matter what (barring legal trouble, etc). Kid has to stay through graduation or loses eligibility. Other kids can choose to be on a one year "deal", the staff knows, the kids know; either party can cut the deal at any time. Free agency vs guaranteed contract kind of deal.

 

[jeffgt14]

All hell will break loose if you have 1yr and 4yr scholarships. Priority very clearly would fall on the 1yr guys to keep them happy.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Some thoughtful suggestions in this thread. I like the idea of allowing one transfer without penalty and you lose a year of eligibility for each subsequent one. One thing the ncaa won't be able to do is go back to the old system. They will have a revolt on their hands and the calls to pay the players will grow even louder. The current system of investigating every request is also inefficient and lacking in transparency.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

The NCAA should make this simple so they don’t spend all of their time in court. No waivers. Period. If you transfer, you sit for a year. Period. Personally, I don’t like the idea of transfers but I really dislike the way this waiver situation is ripe for manipulation. This is turning college ball into semipro football with a free agency market, basically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree 100%!

 

[Skeptic]

The NCAA should make this simple so they don’t spend all of their time in court. No waivers. Period. If you transfer, you sit for a year. Period. Personally, I don’t like the idea of transfers but I really dislike the way this waiver situation is ripe for manipulation. This is turning college ball into semipro football with a free agency market, basically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why should an 18-year old give up a year of eligibility because a) he made a mistake at 18; b) the coach who recruited him promising love everlasting now is a continent away seducing another 18-year-old (at no penalty to his ownself by the way) and c) a dozen other entirely defensible reasons. That loss of eligibility rule has one purpose and one only: to lock a kid into place. I'll buy taking a year away to prevent poaching by coaches wanting to take talent with them to play now, but not a rule intended to show some little twit who's boss. But if you'll apply the same rule to your next job change, then I'll buy your rationale. (Yeah, yeah, I know. Free market and all that. Except we stop the free market at the players' door.) As for graduate transfers, the player has his degree and only the arrogant NCAA would profess authority over him or her in any fashion. It is a bizarre interpretation to assume otherwise. (I know more than one person who went to more than one college, me included. What is my punishment?))

 

[gtg391z]

Well, kg02 is 12 now but still loves her some disney princesses.

Better that than some-a the nonsense other 12yo girls be watchin'.

My boys watch videos of other people playing videos games.

 

[RonJohn]

I think that coaches should not have the power to limit where they can go. However, I do think they should have to sit a year so there is some kind of deterrent to bigger schools poaching talent. I’d be fine with them getting an additional year of eligibility if they’ve already redshirted, so they could still get a full 4 years to play. An NFL level talent would then be more likely to dance with the one who brought them if transferring would delay the NFL paycheck by a year.

Why punish the student-athlete to prevent coaches from actively poaching talent? If you want to prevent unwanted behavior of the coaches, then punish the coaches. Such as, if a coach is found to be poaching talent outside of the rules, then that coach is suspended from all NCAA coaching activities for a year.

 

[GT_05]

Why should an 18-year old give up a year of eligibility because a) he made a mistake at 18; b) the coach who recruited him promising love everlasting now is a continent away seducing another 18-year-old (at no penalty to his ownself by the way) and c) a dozen other entirely defensible reasons. That loss of eligibility rule has one purpose and one only: to lock a kid into place. I'll buy taking a year away to prevent poaching by coaches wanting to take talent with them to play now, but not a rule intended to show some little twit who's boss. But if you'll apply the same rule to your next job change, then I'll buy your rationale. (Yeah, yeah, I know. Free market and all that. Except we stop the free market at the players' door.) As for graduate transfers, the player has his degree and only the arrogant NCAA would profess authority over him or her in any fashion. It is a bizarre interpretation to assume otherwise. (I know more than one person who went to more than one college, me included. What is my punishment?))

This is all very easy when you think in terms of student-athlete instead of athlete-student like you must be thinking. Commit to the school, not the coach. Regardless, sitting for a season isn’t a death sentence and I don’t think the rule was intended to be punitive. It seems like the intent of sitting a season was to a) do you really want to come to this school and b) do you really want to transfer and seek greener pastures elsewhere. If the waivers weren’t so easily manipulated then the sitting out rule would be effective.

And yeah, as far as your job change comment...you ever heard of a no-compete agreement? If I entered into such an agreement I would have to abide by it or face getting sued. Similarly, these athletes entered into an agreement with the school and they know the rules. Again, sitting out is not the end of the world, especially if they are in school for school and not just for sports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BCJacket]

What we really need to address is all these coaches changing jobs. It's not fair to the ADs and the schools to have to worry about their coaches transferring to a better program if they turn out better than expected. It's a defacto free agency system! The coaches should commit to the school, not the money. They should have to sit out two years if they want to change jobs.

College football in 2019 is a professional sport. There's just too much money in it now. Unless they want to take the games off TV and take the money out of it; eventually, they're going to have to pay the players, have a union and create rules like the NFL, NBA and MLB have to govern player contracts, transfers, etc. The schools, networks, coaches and admin can't continue to make billions and treat the players like chattel.

 

[GTonTop88]

Idk if this would be a good thing for us or not. We may get some high profile guys that are 2nd stringers but may also lose some guys that we depend on as well.

 

[GT_05]

The schools, networks, coaches and admin can't continue to make billions and treat the players like chattel.

This is like when folks demonize companies like Walmart for making the money they make and not paying their employees enough. If you don’t like the pay, go work somewhere else. In this case, if the players don’t like the arrangement maybe they can play in the CFL or not play at all. Besides that, if they’re on a scholly then they are getting paid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gtbowhunter90]

Let em transfer. This paves the way for SA's to earn a decent paycheck. Don't like that idea?? Well I don't like the NCAA making billions off kids.

 

[RonJohn]

Besides that, if they’re on a scholly then they are getting paid.

Only if the education is worth something. The UNC education and degrees didn't mean much did they? Many coaches are pushing recruitment purely for athletic reasons. School is seen as a "have to" activity to appease the rules. If the coaches and programs don't take education seriously, then it is worth very little. If the student-athletes don't take education seriously, then it isn't worth anything.

 

[YellowJacketFan2018]

Let em transfer. This paves the way for SA's to earn a decent paycheck. Don't like that idea?? Well I don't like the NCAA making billions off kids.

I think in the future a lot of the highest rated players will go to the AAF and XFL and forgo College Football all together

 

[Gtbowhunter90]

I think in the future a lot of the highest rated players will go to the AAF and XFL and forgo College Football all together

If those leagues can catch serious traction, I can definitely see it happening

 

[GT_05]

Only if the education is worth something. The UNC education and degrees didn't mean much did they? Many coaches are pushing recruitment purely for athletic reasons. School is seen as a "have to" activity to appease the rules. If the coaches and programs don't take education seriously, then it is worth very little. If the student-athletes don't take education seriously, then it isn't worth anything.

UNC offers valuable degrees. If they didn’t take advantage of the opportunity then that’s on them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Several thoughts here:

1. There should be a one time transfer rule. After you leave the second school, your eligibility is up. (Exception for JUCO, which would allow two transfers IF they transferred from D1 to JUCO then back to D1)

2. Scholarships should be 4 years across the board, and should count towards the roster cap for the duration of the 4 years unless a player graduates or declares for the draft, which would limit the ability for factories to process players out of their system.

3. The waiver decision needs to be uniform. Either everyone gets immediate eligibility or if not, then the year out of play should NOT count towards eligibility, regardless of previous redshirt status.

 

[orientalnc]

Only if the education is worth something. The UNC education and degrees didn't mean much did they? Many coaches are pushing recruitment purely for athletic reasons. School is seen as a "have to" activity to appease the rules. If the coaches and programs don't take education seriously, then it is worth very little. If the student-athletes don't take education seriously, then it isn't worth anything.

This post is wrong. A UNC degree is still a cherished document. Don't confuse the university with the team's misdeeds.

 

[RonJohn]

UNC offers valuable degrees. If they didn’t take advantage of the opportunity then that’s on them.

Did the coaches at UNC recruit players who would actually benefit from an education? Did the coaches or support staff at UNC push suspect players into the worthless programs to keep the eligible to play?

My statements are in response to your assertion that the players get "paid" something of benefit. If it is something that they don't want or that carries little value, then they received nothing of benefit. My assertions are based on my belief that the NCAA and the NCAA schools should actually act like the mission statement of the NCAA says. They don't. They act like they are running a business.

 

[RonJohn]

This post is wrong. A UNC degree is still a cherished document. Don't confuse the university with the team's misdeeds.

I wasn't talking about UNC degrees in general. I was specifically saying that the education based on the bogus classes weren't worth anything. People who received a degree based on the bogus classes might have a piece of paper, but they didn't really learn anything. What good is a degree from any university if the recipient doesn't know anything. It might help you get a job, but it won't help you maintain your position once your employer finds out you can't accomplish the work.