NCAA changes rule, players will now be allowed to transfer without permission from their coach/school

[Beau Vine 54,471]

11 hours ago, DougO said:

People with too much power sure love fixing what ain't broke.

I'm posting this again because maybe you didn't read it before forming your "ain't broke" opinion:

Quote

K-State has blocked Romero from receiving immediate financial aid from 94 schools in 13 conferences. She requested a release to those 94 schools in her initial transfer request, which was denied by athletic officials. Romero appealed that decision, but it was also denied.

Jackson said K-State has granted Romero permission to contact two schools not on her initial list. He said it also briefly granted Middle Tennessee State, one of the teams on her list, permission to speak with Romero on Thursday via e-mail. But K-State retracted the offer within one hour, claiming a clerical error had been made. The e-mail was a mistake.

“Who is in charge of that athletic department? Kindergarteners? ” Jackson said. “I have never seen anything like this.… They need to release her to every school on the list. A conditional release is fine. Let her go anywhere outside the Big 12 and Northern Colorado. Until she is released this not going away. They need to end this. It’s as simple as that.”

Those words came in response to a statement issued by K-State on Wednesday evening that made its stance on Romero’s transfer request clear. Because an appeals committee denied Romero’s request for a release last month, she will not be able to obtain one. The ruling of the committee is “final and binding.”

“There is no university procedure to reexamine one of those decisions,” read the statement, which was written by K-State vice president for communications and marketing Jeffery Morris. “Thus, the university process concludes with the Appeals Committee’s decision. Also, the final and binding nature of these decisions does not allow for them to be overturned by university administrators.”

If you think this qualifies as "ain't broke," then you're an idiot.

[bamachine 1,231]

5 hours ago, Tuco said:

It sounds to me like you are all for what's fair for the players, unless it hurts the level of competition.  Even if your conclusion is true (that it would hurt the competition), I don't agree with your priorities.

 

 

I did not say unless it hurts the level of competition, just pointing out that it likely will, just so people know the end results.

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

Someone having the ability to attend a better university outweighs my need to be entertained on Saturday.

[rickyspub 801]

8 minutes ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Someone having the ability to attend a better university outweighs my need to be entertained on Saturday.

I doubt Stanford is opening the doors to Bama transfers with a 2.5 GPA, even ones that are great football players. This has nothing to do with playing school.

I think the new rule is fine and I would have even been OK with it if restricted them from going to any school that was on the schedule in the next year. But even that would put some hardship on players in the Pac who would have few local options without having to drop down to a G5 or below.

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

3 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

I doubt Stanford is opening the doors to Bama transfers with a 2.5 GPA, even ones that are great football players. This has nothing to do with playing school.

I think the new rule is fine and I would have even been OK with it if restricted them from going to any school that was on the schedule in the next year. But even that would put some hardship on players in the Pac who would have few local options without having to drop down to a G5 or below.

Obviously the school has to accept you.  It doesn't matter why they go where they go, it's their decision.  It's obvious not all schools are created equal and a coach controlling where you go because he's butthurt is plenty ridiculous.

What does it matter if they are on the schedule?  You think the player has some secret code on how to beat them?

[rickyspub 801]

1 minute ago, Gene Parmesan said:

Obviously the school has to accept you.  It doesn't matter why they go where they go, it's their decision.  It's obvious not all schools are created equal and a coach controlling where you go because he's butthurt is plenty ridiculous.

What does it matter if they are on the schedule?  You think the player has some secret code on how to beat them?

I think the idea that any but the slimmest minority of players will actually transfer to improve the quality of instruction is silly. In fact, I imagine the transfers we will see will be struggling players at schools like Texas understanding what OU meant when they said they have 'better academics'. 

I am merely surprised that the rule didn't just codify what most people felt was the somewhat reasonable restriction of teams on the schedule, whether it offers any tangible competitive benefits or not. When they were discussing the change I got the sense it was done to counter the unreasonable restrictions that limited players to almost no FBS options. But this also counters the silliness of limiting the ability of a non-scholarship player, like Baker Mayfield (fuck him and OU), from being able to go where he wanted.

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

I don't care why they transfer or whether people on the internet approve or even understand it.  It's their decision to attend whatever school that will have them.  If they want to go to a shit academic university because they are struggling then they should be able to.  If they want to chase a girl then that's their decision, not their coach's.  If they want to improve their NFL chances and there are better options then go. 

You don't let your current boss decide who your next employer can be.

 

[Beau Vine 54,471]

13 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

 

I am merely surprised that the rule didn't just codify what most people felt was the somewhat reasonable restriction of teams on the schedule, whether it offers any tangible competitive benefits or not.

 

Please explain why that's a somewhat reasonable restriction.

[ChickenSandwich 9,856]

On 6/13/2018 at 2:21 PM, bamachine said:

If you don't think he will turn this to his benefit, you crazy.

He has mentioned many changes as something he was against, then used the changes to his benefit.

You could be right or....wrong.

Could just as likely burn Bama worse than most because they have the most 4-5 star guys who aren't on the two deep.  The big fish in small pond guys (Von Miller etc) are way less likely to leave as are back ups on mediocre teams. 

I'd put money this hurts Bama more long term, but they will def benefit in the short term for singular positions of need.  To use your example, Bama needs a stud LT and they go get one from a team going nowhere, but what does that say to the 4-5 stars recruited at that position the last three years, and the one waiting to commit?  Previously Saban would just ban them from in conference transfers or schedule, and they would have to sit a year.  Real ammo for Saban to "help" those guys stick around for his depth.  Now, those non-freshman back ups will be way more likely to leave Bama.  Bama's guys were all stars in high school and probably have the egos to match.  Riding the pine may work for some, but I see it not working for more of the Bama studs and teams like them than the little guy losing its best player.

And it's Karma for Saban's over-recruiting, gray shirts, and the quiet push out the door when recruited over.  He is upset for real this time as we have seen how he treats his potential transfers with any ounce of talent

Edited June 14, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[rickyspub 801]

2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Please explain why that's a somewhat reasonable restriction.

It has been tradition for ever. If the NCAA rule change were just to stop coaches from making it impossible for a player to transfer anywhere and just limited it to teams on the schedule, the majority of fans and the media would have seen it as a just decision. I am somewhat surprised they went as far as they did. That is all I am saying...

Gene's point that it somehow was about players attending a better university is really the untenable point here, as it really has nothing to do with academics. As he follows up and notes, it could be for a girlfriend or whatever. He shouldn't have tried to paint this as a rule change for some noble academic pursuit, when it is just about treating players like other students, which is the key point.

This to me is just the NCAA deflecting from doing the right thing and sharing revenue with the players. The transfer restriction has always been held up as one of the unfair ways the NCAA treats players compared to other students and this move strikes me as a way to deflect attention away from treating players as employees. It's to make the NCAA look like they are doing the 'right thing' when it is merely dangling a shiny bauble to the masses.

[bamachine 1,231]

10 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

 

And its Karma for Saban's over-recruiting, gray shirts, and the quiet push out the door when recruited over.  He is upset for real this time as we have seen how he treats his potential transfers with any ounce of talent

Karma, as in he will not win any more titles? I think he has won plenty. About 5 players transfer every season from Bama, only about 1 in 10 goes on to any noticable PT elsewhere. As for Smith, a few years ago, to UGA and Kennedy this season, to the Vols, that was a SEC rule that grads could not transfer to an upcoming opponent without sitting out a year. That rule just got rescinded at the SEC meetings and Kennedy was immediately released. 

[ChickenSandwich 9,856]

9 minutes ago, bamachine said:

Karma, as in he will not win any more titles? I think he has won plenty. About 5 players transfer every season from Bama, only about 1 in 10 goes on to any noticable PT elsewhere. As for Smith, a few years ago, to UGA and Kennedy this season, to the Vols, that was a SEC rule that grads could not transfer to an upcoming opponent without sitting out a year. That rule just got rescinded at the SEC meetings and Kennedy was immediately released. 

Karma is the wrong word. Saban runs a factory and processes them in and out. These rule changes just allow the student athlete to do the same. He was the master of the current system, no reason he would want to change the status quo. Only way to go is down. 

Could be way off, and Nick creates a super team of transfers each year. Will be fun to watch unfold. 

Good for the SEC changing the rule. Saban’s excuse that the SEC rules prevented it so he was just following the rules when he declined to grant a waiver was some ridiculous bullshit. 

When he wines passive aggressively about “free agents” it’s quite a site to behold. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by ChickenSandwich

[deadshank 24,653]

On 6/13/2018 at 1:25 PM, Beau Vine said:

No, and good for the players if I'm wrong.  And I can't believe I'm reading the bolded part.

 

Does anyone have a problem with a UT taking a student who went to UTSA for a couple of years and made a 4.0 there?

BV, we've seen your transcripts.  You're grades weren't that good.  The 4.0 BAC doesn't count either.

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

13 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

It has been tradition for ever. If the NCAA rule change were just to stop coaches from making it impossible for a player to transfer anywhere and just limited it to teams on the schedule, the majority of fans and the media would have seen it as a just decision. I am somewhat surprised they went as far as they did. That is all I am saying...

Gene's point that it somehow was about players attending a better university is really the untenable point here, as it really has nothing to do with academics. As he follows up and notes, it could be for a girlfriend or whatever. He shouldn't have tried to paint this as a rule change for some noble academic pursuit, when it is just about treating players like other students, which is the key point.

This to me is just the NCAA deflecting from doing the right thing and sharing revenue with the players. The transfer restriction has always been held up as one of the unfair ways the NCAA treats players compared to other students and this move strikes me as a way to deflect attention away from treating players as employees. It's to make the NCAA look like they are doing the 'right thing' when it is merely dangling a shiny bauble to the masses.

It's been a tradition forever because coaches have had the power forever and they didn't want good players going to schools they play.  It's pure spite.  Academics aren't the only measure of better university that's up to the individual.  I just used it as an example of better.  I didn't mean to paint the new rule as noble, other than to just paint the old rule as complete bullshit.  Better could simply be closer to home, it really doesn't matter the guy can simply be throwing darts at a list of schools and the coach shouldn't be able to stop him. 

[Beau Vine 54,471]

18 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

It has been tradition for ever.

It hasn't been a tradition forever. 

The NCAA currently allows athletes in sports other than football, basketball, baseball, and hockey to transfer and immediately be eligible. 

There is no reason to segregate this rule across different sports other than the blatant fact that the NCAA considers some students to be valuable, so we'll restrict their rights so that we can extract their value, and some students to not be valuable so they can go wherever they want.

That's pretty much the ultimate hypocrisy for a non-profit (lulz) organization whose mission statement says that "the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."

[Vertigo 20,337]

1 hour ago, rickyspub said:

I doubt Stanford is opening the doors to Bama transfers with a 2.5 GPA, even ones that are great football players. This has nothing to do with playing school.

I think the new rule is fine and I would have even been OK with it if restricted them from going to any school that was on the schedule in the next year. But even that would put some hardship on players in the Pac who would have few local options without having to drop down to a G5 or below.

That is true for most conferences, as schools tend to be regionally based in the P5. A texas kid wanting to leave the B12 would basically need to leave the state to do it. 

 

Edit: Like the rest of the world, I forgot about aggy. Fuck aggy

Edited June 14, 2018 by Vertigo

[rickyspub 801]

43 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

It hasn't been a tradition forever. 

The NCAA currently allows athletes in sports other than football, basketball, baseball, and hockey to transfer and immediately be eligible. 

There is no reason to segregate this rule across different sports other than the blatant fact that the NCAA considers some students to be valuable, so we'll restrict their rights so that we can extract their value, and some students to not be valuable so they can go wherever they want.

That's pretty much the ultimate hypocrisy for a non-profit (lulz) organization whose mission statement says that "the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."

I don't know the history of the rules but the transfer rules in football have been that way for as long as I can remember. The only time it gets talked about in a negative light is when a coach goes asshole and restricts the transfer to a bunch of schools outside of those on that school's schedule or when the players or those representing them talk about getting paid for their employment and the transfer restriction is held out as something that reveals them to be a different class from the student body. I guarantee you if the rule that was passed had a restriction for transfers to schools on the schedule, the average fan would have shrugged their shoulders and the media would have talked about how this was a great change against bastard coaches. If you dug deep enough you would have found a few articles saying it was weak sauce. That is the reality.

The NCAA must be under more heat than I thought because this is a symbolic move meant to push back against athletes being treated as employees. The football player's position has been improved by 0.00001 percent by this rule change.

[DougO 5,256]

7 hours ago, ousux said:

15 hours ago, DougO said:

People with too much power sure love fixing what ain't broke. Gonna feck it all up just like every other sport.

Like any other workplace, the NCAA has people who like to justify their existence and salary by "doing something"... even if that something is useless or counterproductive. Not saying this move is, just saying..

That's why we're about to get touchbacks for kickoffs fair caught inside the 25 yard line, for example.

[kopp0e 1,135]

3 hours ago, Gene Parmesan said:

You don't let your current boss decide who your next employer can be.

 

I know I totally agree with you on this...

[Machinator 32,099]

https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/college/big-12/texas-christian-university/article214684155.html

Gary Patterson rips into new NCAA rule. ‘That’s stupid.’

The NCAA gets a 50 percent approval rating from TCU head coach Gary Patterson this offseason.

He likes the new “redshirt” rule that allows schools to play freshmen for up to four games without burning a year of eligibility. He doesn’t like the new “transfer” rule where the NCAA sets up a national, public football transfer database and prevents schools from blocking players from leaving for specific institutions.

“The redshirt rule is an unbelievable rule,” Patterson said earlier this week from his Patterson Foundation fundraising event.

“We haven’t changed the redshirt rule since it was like 10 games with 125 scholarships. Now we have 85 scholarships and play 14, 15 games.

“It’s a lot better for your team’s health.”

Patterson believes the redshirt rule will be beneficial to schools and players, although it is an inexact science of how to best utilize it.

TCU, for instance, may want to get a true freshman playing time during the season. The first game against Southern isn’t expected to be close by the end, which would give Patterson a low-pressure situation to put them in.

But that would burn one of four games they could play in a relatively meaningless situation should something happen later in the season where TCU really needs them. Or what game will make most sense if Patterson wants to get true freshman quarterback Justin Rogers action during the season?

That is all hypothetical, of course.

“Or you can look at it from, you get a D-lineman hurt at the end of the year and you don’t have anybody else,” Patterson said. “But you have these freshmen who have now grown up in your program who can play at the end of the year instead of a guy having to take too many reps and getting hurt.

“Sometimes you play a freshman and he wasn’t ready to play,but by the end of the year he is.”

With that being said, there are several more positives than negatives with the new “redshirt” rule in Patterson’s mind. He feels the opposite about the “transfer” rule.

Starting in October, student athletes will no longer have to receive permission to transfer from a coach. Instead, a new “notification-to-transfer” model is being adopted where a student informs his or her current school, then requires that school to enter the student’s name into a national database within two business days.

Once a student’s name is in that database, coaches are free to contact that individual.

The NCAA likely felt it needed to make a change in regards to transfers with stories such as Corey Sutton coming to light. Kansas State refused to release Sutton from his athletic scholarship in May 2017 even though Sutton’s list of 35 potential transfer destinations didn’t include Big 12schools or teams on future K-State schedules.

In fact, some schools were FCS and Division II.

Patterson called the K-State situation the “worst-case scenario” when it comes to transfers, but thought the NCAA went too far, especially without putting some parameters on it.

“Here’s what’s going to happen – players from other teams are going to start recruiting people and you can’t stop them from going wherever they’re going to go,” Patterson said. “Then it’s like what we’ve been trying to stop for a long time – it’s going to become the highest bidder. The people who are going to get hurt most by this is the non-Power Five schools.

“Schools right now, they’ve got a list of who all grad transfers are. Now, they’ll look at film and see who all the best players are[not just grad transfers] and then somebody is going to reach out and find them.

“Everybody will say nobody will do that. ... OK ...”

Patterson would have been OK with the new “transfer” rule if the NCAA put restrictions on it. He would’ve liked to have a date such as Jan.1 when students must declare if they’re going to transfer, which would give their previous school time to recruit players at that position.

“If these kids transfer in February, how do you make up these scholarships?” Patterson said. “We’ve recruited a couple grad transfers and they let their schools know in December, January, so you give that place a chance to recruit. It’s just fair to the university and the kids who are on that team.”

Additionally, Patterson believes the NCAA should not allow freshmen to transfer. He pointed to the number of college basketball transfers as a reason to prevent freshmen from doing so in football.

“You know how many basketball kids transferred last year?800,” Patterson said. “That’s with 13 scholarships. Can you imagine football teams with 85 scholarships, what the number of transfers is going to be?

“What we’re teaching our kids to do is quit. I’m not starting. I’m not getting my playing time. Every freshman I’ve ever known wants to transfer because it’s hard than anything else he did in high school.

“As I tell people all the time, at your house you’re going to allow your 17-year-old, 18-year-old to run your household? Let them pay your bills, that’s what you do? No. You don’t do that. So why are we putting our jobs in jeopardy because of an 18-year-old? That’s stupid.”

[Machinator 32,099]

 

[Beau Vine 54,471]

I'm just completely shocked that noted arbiter of fairness Gary Patterson is in favor of the rule change that will make his job easier, and is not in favor of the rule change that will make his job harder.

[Machinator 32,099]

 

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

Do you not have to sit out still? 

[Vertigo 20,337]

1 hour ago, Machinator said:

 

That's because most B12 coaches are assholes and trainwrecks. 

['stache 21,892]

Patterson and Holgy seem to have some misunderstandings.  Doesn't a player still sit out a year, and aren't other schools barred from "recruiting" players until after the player asks for and is granted a release?  My understanding is that the school is simply barred from placing conditions on the release that they can't transfer to certain schools.  Essentially, they can talk with any school, but not until they ask for and are given their release.  Also, don't conferences already have a 2-year sit out rule for intra-conference transfers?

Edited July 17, 2018 by 'stache

[kopp0e 1,135]

On 6/14/2018 at 2:18 PM, Gene Parmesan said:

I don't care why they transfer or whether people on the internet approve or even understand it.  It's their decision to attend whatever school that will have them.  If they want to go to a shit academic university because they are struggling then they should be able to.  If they want to chase a girl then that's their decision, not their coach's.  If they want to improve their NFL chances and there are better options then go. 

You don't let your current boss decide who your next employer can be.

 

Agreed, what I wonder, is if payment to athletes ever gets off the ground, will conferences like the SEC & B1G sit at an advantage in earning the most disposable revenue..?

Quote

SEC, NCAA leaders still dawdling when it comes to paying athletes

The Tennessean-3 hours ago

 

Eventually the Olympic model will happen, because it’s the right thing morally; because it will allow college athletics to operate virtually the same as it has for decades from a product and fan standpoint; because it’s the only way for athletes to be compensated without massively overhauling a system that does indeed provide significant opportunities for athletes in “non-revenue” sports. The people who run this industry don’t want this to become minor league professional sports, and neither do I, and neither should you.

 

https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/college/vols/2018/07/17/sec-football-ut-vols-tennessee-vanderbilt-olympic-model/788916002/

 

[Beau Vine 54,471]

Quote

The people who run this industry don’t want this to become minor league professional sports, and neither do I, and neither should you.

Newsflash: It already has.

[rickyspub 801]

2 hours ago, kopp0e said:

Agreed, what I wonder, is if payment to athletes ever gets off the ground, will conferences like the SEC & B1G sit at an advantage in earning the most disposable revenue..?

 

The idea here is that athletes can earn money outside of the university. So the pockets of alumni are likely going to be the most potent factor, but advertising firms are going to pay the biggest bucks to stars for teams with huge followings. So Big Red Auto is no longer engaging in a summer employment scam, but could just make a direct payment to athletes or maybe they appear in ads rather than punching the clock and then forgetting to return to Big Red's to punch out again.

[kopp0e 1,135]

5 hours ago, rickyspub said:

The idea here is that athletes can earn money outside of the university. So the pockets of alumni are likely going to be the most potent factor, but advertising firms are going to pay the biggest bucks to stars for teams with huge followings. So Big Red Auto is no longer engaging in a summer employment scam, but could just make a direct payment to athletes or maybe they appear in ads rather than punching the clock and then forgetting to return to Big Red's to punch out again.

No wonder Rig Red offered most financing at 19% APR, the dealership had to pay for those "hidden fees" lol, all joking aside, I think this will eventually be something that helps to clean up the sport and keep an element of amateurism as the "bag men" are no longer needed... Now if there could just be an agreement of some sort as to where the NCAA and EA Sports could continue with the video games that we all loved, that could hold many of us over until the following kickoff to the season..!

Quote

'NCAA Football' last came out 5 years ago. Here's how gamers are ...

SB Nation-Jul 9, 2018

On July 9, 2013, NCAA Football 14 by EA Sports hit stores. The cover athlete was former Michigan quarterback Denard Robinson, whom the ...

Please give us another college football video game
For The Win-Jul 9, 2018

 

[ousux 5,602]

I'm just completely shocked that noted arbiter of fairness Gary Patterson is in favor of the rule change that will make his job easier, and is not in favor of the rule change that will make his job harder.

Thousands of ruined sweat rags aside, he's right about this. Players (with prodding from coaches/boosters/casual fans) will start recruiting their buddies on other teams..the ones that aren't getting play time right away. Of course if conferences make their own rules about this, and players still have to sit a year it may not be an issue.

[Laga4 1,270]

20 hours ago, kopp0e said:

Agreed, what I wonder, is if payment to athletes ever gets off the ground, will conferences like the SEC & B1G sit at an advantage in earning the most disposable revenue..?

 

That's pretty much the way everything works.

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

9 minutes ago, ousux said:

On ‎7‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 11:49 AM, Beau Vine said:

I'm just completely shocked that noted arbiter of fairness Gary Patterson is in favor of the rule change that will make his job easier, and is not in favor of the rule change that will make his job harder.

Thousands of ruined sweat rags aside, he's right about this. Players (with prodding from coaches/boosters/casual fans) will start recruiting their buddies on other teams..the ones that aren't getting play time right away. Of course if conferences make their own rules about this, and players still have to sit a year it may not be an issue.

Losing eligibility is still in play.  The rule just stops butthurt Patterson from barring potential schools which is something he never should have had the ability to do in the first place.

[Machinator 32,099]

 

[BurntOrange&White 40,049]

 

Good. The waiver shit is so highly inconsistent

[AUS-97HORN 11,824]

1 minute ago, Bevo VIII said:

Good. The waiver shit is so highly inconsistent

Its really cute that you think the NCAA will bring any kind of consistency into their decision making.

its the same org that punished the shit out of Missouri for discovering a rogue tutor,  that they self-reported to the infraction to the NCAA, and proactively suspended/kicked out the athletes who took advantage of the situation.... but then the same org meanwhile, didnt even bother giving North Carolina any real punishment  when they had multiple fake GPA improvement classes that ran for TWENTY FUCKING YEARS that almost every athlete in the school went to

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:

Good. The waiver shit is so highly inconsistent

NCAA wheelhouse...

 

and hoops coaches don't want to be further embarrassed by dudes like Chris Beard leveraging 2 grad transfers in his starting 5 into an NCAA Finals appearance.  That shit should NOT be happening.  Basketball 'control' is far more at risk than football, due to limited playing spots.

Edited June 26, 2019 by slorch

[Huckleberry 33,115]

Not good, it's dumb. Let them go and play wherever they want whenever they want.

[ChickenSandwich 9,856]

Unlimited transfers for underclassmen.  All transfers sit a year to become eligible.  4 years of playing eligibility period. No more 5 to play 4.  

That would cut down on transfers as a move would require a commitment, and should give the student a year to acclimate academically to his new environment 

Edited June 26, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Unlimited transfers for underclassmen.  All transfers sit a year to become eligible. 

That would cut down on transfers as a move would require a commitment, and should give the student a year to acclimate academically to his new environment 

That's way too fucking simple and measurable...

[Machinator 32,099]

16 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Unlimited transfers for underclassmen.  All transfers sit a year to become eligible.  4 years of playing eligibility period. No more 5 to play 4.  

That would cut down on transfers as a move would require a commitment, and should give the student a year to acclimate academically to his new environment 

So you want to eliminate the redshirt entirely?

[AUS-97HORN 11,824]

5 minutes ago, Machinator said:

So you want to eliminate the redshirt entirely?

I think he wants to eliminate the redshirts for non-grad transfers only.

Its not the greatest idea, but then again, if you are allowed to do 4 in 5 at your original school, that might be a legit way to have a real and lasting impact on the transfers decision making.

Leave and you lose a year of eligibility.  stay and you can take a year off, and still keep that eligibility.

[ChickenSandwich 9,856]

*undergrads

in this scenario he could play 4 seasons over 7 years. As long as he was competently pursuing/enrolled in a degree plan or grad school etc

The redshirt would become moot, but I would keep the 4 games played rule from the current set up. A one year exception where 4 games or less would not be used towards your 4 years of eligibility. This would cover early medical redshirts as well. 

*AUS - sitting a year would never cost a year of playing eligibility in this scenario. 

Edited June 26, 2019 by ChickenSandwich

[Machinator 32,099]

[Beau Vine 54,471]

9 minutes ago, Machinator said:

I don't understand this.  The NCAA has told us over and over that coaches can't run off student-athletes or pull scholarships for competitive reasons.  What gives?

[Beau Vine 54,471]

39 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Unlimited transfers for underclassmen.  All transfers sit a year to become eligible.  4 years of playing eligibility period. No more 5 to play 4.  

That would cut down on transfers as a move would require a commitment, and should give the student a year to acclimate academically to his new environment 

That will also cut down on the graduation rate.  

[ChickenSandwich 9,856]

10 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

That will also cut down on the graduation rate.  

Add education and degree progress requirements. Problem solved. You may get more graduates and grad school graduates. 

Allow the school to honor the grad school scholarship after playing eligibility has expired. 

[Hurtlocker 2,213]

I still confused on why transfers are a big deal, at all.  Why should they need permission to not take a scholarship the next year?   Its not like they are paid in advance or transferring mid-season or something.   Its not like regular students need to enroll the next year.

Run a program people want to stay at, they'll stay.   

The only thing I don't like about it is the reviews.   Either everyone sits a year or everyone doesn't.   Don't make it exception based, that just leads to bullshittery.

[DanTheHorn 4,969]

It sucks for us fans but I believe players should not only be able to transfer without permission but they should not have to sit out a year. Yet, I still believe the transfer portal should be closed for the first two years. When a person signs a contract in the real world they have to honor it. So these players make a commitment, regardless of promises they know they have to compete for a job. They should at least honor a two year commitment. Grow up a little. Limit transfers to one for their career in college.

It is like everything in the free market. To much regulation and nothing gets done. To little and it is the early 1900's with children working, no middle class and people being shot for asking to make things better. It is human nature to cut corners for self interest at the expense of others and the right balance of rules are always needed.

[Gene Parmesan 4,016]

3 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

I still confused on why transfers are a big deal, at all.  Why should they need permission to not take a scholarship the next year?   Its not like they are paid in advance or transferring mid-season or something.   Its not like regular students need to enroll the next year.

Run a program people want to stay at, they'll stay.   

The only thing I don't like about it is the reviews.   Either everyone sits a year or everyone doesn't.   Don't make it exception based, that just leads to bullshittery.

This is my stance.  Schools trading players with each other is a zero sum game and the big machine will keep on rolling.  Where does the chaos come from?