Your thoughts on the transfer system?

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,917
Location
Oriental, NC
OK back to the topic, yes sorry I wasn't clear and muddied the water between academics and sports. But I feel sports, being student-athletes, should be part and parcel. So when I say they should all be able to transfer, that includes (in my opinion) eligibility to play sports. They should all be STUDENT athletes and not professional athletes under contract or owned by anybody. That's my personal opinion and I do recognize there are flaws in such a view.
This is the place where the NCAA transfer restriction rules are vulnerable. Any student at the university should be eligible to try out for and play sports at his/her school if they meet the requirements for participation (GPA, class load, residency, etc.).
 

684Bee

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,644
All I know is, whenever I hear someone has entered the "transfer portal", I think of them like this ...

evl.gif

If you have a daughter between the ages of 3 and 6*, then I totally get how this would be your choice. We are knee deep in some princesses at my house.


*if not, then, ummm....well, this is a weird choice.
 

Milwaukee

Banned
Messages
7,277
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Tashard Choice got one with us coming from OU, correct? His mother was sick or something to that effect.

Any rule that has the right intentions is going to get abused by many, just the way it is in life.
 

swarmer

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
700
What is the downside of all players being able to transfer immediately? I cant think of any for the scholarship athlete.

Is it harder on coaches? Maybe, but who cares, they get paid big bucks to manage the program.

Maybe there is a downside for fans, but I think it’s negligible in the long run (only super prominent players are going to move the needle, and those aren’t the ones transferring).

Maybe limit how many a program can take, and how many transfers you can make. But a kid should be able to seek out what he perceives as his best opportunity to succeed
 

tsrich

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
787
Agreed.

These guys have a finite window to display their skills. There’s no good reason for them not to pursue the best situation for them.

Perhaps you could look at limiting the number of transfers a team could receive.

This might be better for athletes now, but I think this is likely to damage the health of college football in the whole. What is my motivation to root for Tech or NCSU or (more so) UAB, UCF, etc if Tex, AL, UF are able to steal any players from their roster that develop into stars? If I was a blue-blood, I'd stop recruiting 3 stars, just take them as soph or jun transfers after they've proven themselves elsewhere.

There's already enough of a tier system in college football, if you turn the bottom 80 schools into a farm system for the top 20 you risk killing your fanbase for all but those 20. Eventually there may be far less scholarships to go around.

If this becomes a thing, there needs to be some blocker to avoid the blue bloods treating everyone else like a farm system.
 

ThatGuy

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
974
Location
Evergreen, CO
What is the downside of all players being able to transfer immediately? I cant think of any for the scholarship athlete.

Is it harder on coaches? Maybe, but who cares, they get paid big bucks to manage the program.

Maybe there is a downside for fans, but I think it’s negligible in the long run (only super prominent players are going to move the needle, and those aren’t the ones transferring).

Maybe limit how many a program can take, and how many transfers you can make. But a kid should be able to seek out what he perceives as his best opportunity to succeed

It all goes back to the original reason:

The original purpose of making a player sit out a year is still valid though. It wasn't to keep players from transferring laterally or down, it was to keep players from transferring up. Without any restrictions, when smaller programs find their diamonds, after they've shown their talents for a year, the big programs will come sniffing around essentially recruiting them to transfer.

An example - GT finds a Dedrick Mills-style bruiser of a running back. We invest the time, energy, and resources into helping him develop to his full potential. We found him when no one else would give him the time of day.

Then when he because known as one of the Top 5 RBs in the country, Bama and OU and Ohio State start sniffing around, and trying to get him to transfer (nevermind uGA). And I'm confident asserting that most of them have lots bigger budgets, and lots more 'bagmen' on hand than GT.

In essence, giving players the ability to transfer unrestricted means "the rich keep getting rich and the poor keep getting poorer."

I'm in favor of the old-style "hardship waivers", because bad things do happen. As much as I don't like that Demetris Robertson headed to uGA, I'm glad he was able to come home to be close to his ailing family members and not have to lose a year of eligibility. That's the way it should be.

But someone who says "I came, I lost out on the starting job, and now I want to leave without consequences?" Or someone who says "I came here because I was a 2-star, and now the big programs want me to come to them, so I'm leaving because [insert dynasty here] will be in the National Championship hunt?" That doesn't feel right to me. That just ensures the Clemson's, Bama's, and uGA's of the world will continue to be in the playoffs every year - at which point, why even have a playoff? Why even have teams like GT competing in the ACC?

(Of course, I'm a market of one. Just stating an opinion.)
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,499
There are a lot of ways to see transfers as a way to make the rich richer. If you're going to apply for a waiver, Auburn is going to have a lot more help to offer there than Western Kentucky. From that vantage, the mandatory one year waiting time is to the advantage of the schools who know how to influence the NCAA. If everyone has to sit a year, the teams that have so much talent that they can wait a year have the advantage. The way I figure it, the teams with the war chest are going to be at an advantage no matter what the rules are.
For the students, if I transfer schools, I can get an on campus or off campus job immediately. The eligibility rule isn't as much about leveling the playing field between schools as it is about giving the athletic departments leverage over the student athlete. While as a fan I'd like any and all athletes to be committed to GT come what may, I think the eligibility rule isn't fair to the athletes, and enforcing it is more likely to have legal issues for the schools than not having a waiting period at all.
 

Ash

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
779
I can't see a reason to limit a player's choice to transfer. Maybe they lose a year of eligibility, but could play immediately. That would put a limit on hopping around, but still allow for a kid to get out of a situation he does not fit in.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,576
It all goes back to the original reason:

An example - GT finds a Dedrick Mills-style bruiser of a running back. We invest the time, energy, and resources into helping him develop to his full potential. We found him when no one else would give him the time of day.

Then when he because known as one of the Top 5 RBs in the country, Bama and OU and Ohio State start sniffing around, and trying to get him to transfer (nevermind uGA). And I'm confident asserting that most of them have lots bigger budgets, and lots more 'bagmen' on hand than GT.

In essence, giving players the ability to transfer unrestricted means "the rich keep getting rich and the poor keep getting poorer."

I'm in favor of the old-style "hardship waivers", because bad things do happen. As much as I don't like that Demetris Robertson headed to uGA, I'm glad he was able to come home to be close to his ailing family members and not have to lose a year of eligibility. That's the way it should be.

But someone who says "I came, I lost out on the starting job, and now I want to leave without consequences?" Or someone who says "I came here because I was a 2-star, and now the big programs want me to come to them, so I'm leaving because [insert dynasty here] will be in the National Championship hunt?" That doesn't feel right to me. That just ensures the Clemson's, Bama's, and uGA's of the world will continue to be in the playoffs every year - at which point, why even have a playoff? Why even have teams like GT competing in the ACC?

(Of course, I'm a market of one. Just stating an opinion.)

I understand that's a major concern, but it could work both ways. Maybe Jalen Hurts would have been our QB last year.
(But yeah, I know - Ugag would have beaten Bama and gone to the championship game. :eek:)
 

buzzed

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
339
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.
 

YellowJacketFan2018

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,022
Location
Southeast Tennessee
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.
A lot of those problems will probably sort themselves out as far as NFL level talent goes if the AAF becomes just a minor league system for the NFL
 

kg01

Get-Bak! Coach
Featured Member
Messages
15,171
Location
Atlanta
If you have a daughter between the ages of 3 and 6*, then I totally get how this would be your choice. We are knee deep in some princesses at my house.

*if not, then, ummm....well, this is a weird choice.

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

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

jojatk

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,517
As a fan it is always disappointing to see a kid transfer. You develop a loyalty and attachment to the kids who come to your alma mater or the school you've chosen to be a fan of (and thank you to every single one of you out there who has chosen to be a GT fan when you're not alums!!!). But as a person I tend to dislike when large organizations have all the control and power over what a single person does.

With that having been said I think kids should be able to transfer once without penalty. If they want to transfer again then they must sit out a year unless they can establish that the reason for the second transfer isn't just a whim. It probably would be easy to get the second one approved like the kids go through today but at least it would make it a tiny bit more difficult, not to penalize the kid but because at some point you do have to recognize that the school IS spending a lot of money on food and training and tutoring and it is a bit unfair for a kid to get all that for no return, though I could be convinced there should be no waiting period at all (meaning that I'm not set on this). Also if a school loses a kid to a transfer like that then there should be something they get (not from the kid) sort of like when an NFL team loses a free agent and doesn't sign one under certain conditions they get compensatory draft picks so maybe you get to take one kid who is in the transfer portal and he gets immediate eligibility. I'm thinking out loud and haven't given any of these things much thought so take this all with a grain of salt.

Another thing is that I might make it a rule that the moment you enter the transfer portal you lose your ability to work out with the team and access to the team facilities. I know that schools are allowed to do that now if they choose but I'm not sure if they do. However, the kid should retain the scholarship for the remaining time of that semester along with housing and should get a meal plan that allows him to eat while not having access to the "training table" anymore. Most schools have a gym for the regular students and that should be enough for the players who are leaving to stay in shape. If a kid is rehabbing from an injury they should still have access to all the same medical treatment and rehab that they were getting as if they were still players on the team BUT any costs that were incurred by that would be recorded and when the kid transfers the new school would have to pay for that in full. If a kid waits until the end of the semester and then puts himself in the portal and transfers then the cost of that last semester would be paid immediately by the school to which he is transferring. Or something like that. In effect it's a lot like a buyout clause in a coach's contract. I recognize the cost is generally borne somehow by the hiring school so it should be the same if kids are allowed to leave.
 

jeffgt14

We don't quite suck as much anymore.
Messages
5,879
Location
Mt Juliet, TN
There are a lot of ways to see transfers as a way to make the rich richer. If you're going to apply for a waiver, Auburn is going to have a lot more help to offer there than Western Kentucky. From that vantage, the mandatory one year waiting time is to the advantage of the schools who know how to influence the NCAA.
Nailed it here. Justin Fields could very well have wanted to go play immediately at Illinois but chances of getting a waiver at Ohio State is much greater.

I am curious who's paying these lawyers. Is it the transfer school or is it the lawyers seeking the kid out with an IOU payment upon getting drafted?
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,026
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.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,995
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.

That is something that I think a lot of people are missing. The vast majority of scholarship NCAA football players are on one year scholarships. We have discussed in other threads schools that take players off of scholarships. Why is it OK to some for the football teams to yank scholarships if the player doesn't pan out as well as expected, but then lock a player to that program if they play better than expected? Programs seem to try to treat players as possessions instead of people.
 
Top