New transfer rules
- Thread starter Cydkar
- Start date
This was my thought. Do you think SEC schools will give a crap about functionally cutting kids? If a kid hasn't panned out they are going to get the chop pretty dang quick in that league and others.
That would be false. Show me where Alabama already gets to cherry pick the best sophomores in the country from other programs and get them to transfer.
Under this scenario, it would happen every year for the big programs.
For every "best Sophomore" Bama cherry picks, it's one less 4/5* they can take in their class. Either that or they have to cut a former 4/5* start kid loose.
I think this will balance itself out honestly. Also, if Bama (or whatever blue blood) develops a reputation for cutting half of their class loose after one year, I would guess that would start to affect recruiting.
I think this will balance itself out honestly. Also, if Bama (or whatever blue blood) develops a reputation for cutting half of their class loose after one year, I would guess that would start to affect recruiting.
I agree it is about money, but if they do make this transition you will find that they also have to make the schollies only partially guaranteed like those other sports so they will be able cut or modify them any time they want. Not saying this is a good or bad thing just stating that this will also need to change, especially if you want to keep comparing sports.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,095
- 29,252
- 113
why would they have to do that? Not all schools offer guaranteed scholarships right now for football/basketball. They have the option to, but as far as I know, only the Big 10 has it as a requirement.
Edit. After some research, it appears that other power 5 conferences are also requiring guaranteed schollies, but not all schools in FBS/Div1 do. It just furthers the notion that the Power 5 needs to break away and form their own league.
So... For every 5 star recruit freshman Calipari starts he is going to replace with a 4 year senior from somewhere else? So where does that 5 star recruit go to? Why doesn't every standout sophomore sit out a year and then transfer to Alabama? On paper, they'd be the greatest team ever. Why was Carson Wentz playing for North Dakota St when he should have been winning with Alabama apparently? The guy is a NFL stud, what could have possibly kept him at NDSU beating Iowa State in Ames?
There are 129 D1 schools, that's a lot that aren't apparently all rushing to Alabama every year. In fact very few do so. This is only more fair to the players compared to coaches who say PEACE!!! and go coach somewhere else while leaving those previous players/coaches/staff in the dust.
The games aren't played on paper. You still have to perform and have chemistry between everyone involved. People don't just commit to winning, winning is expected everywhere, but they commit to the program, the facilities, the staff, the tradition, player development, teammates, their family.
Iowa State will be fine, if anything it'll help in both sports.
There are 129 D1 schools, that's a lot that aren't apparently all rushing to Alabama every year. In fact very few do so. This is only more fair to the players compared to coaches who say PEACE!!! and go coach somewhere else while leaving those previous players/coaches/staff in the dust.
The games aren't played on paper. You still have to perform and have chemistry between everyone involved. People don't just commit to winning, winning is expected everywhere, but they commit to the program, the facilities, the staff, the tradition, player development, teammates, their family.
Iowa State will be fine, if anything it'll help in both sports.
My guess is this rule will pass, but as most things that come to a vote will have more stipulations than originally proposed. I’m guessing that they will add certain situations (ie coaching changes) along with the original gpa qualifier. Thus keeping it basically the same as it is now just adding more qualifying scenarios for the student athlete. Which is why Kempts situation will look even better for a 6th year after this goes through
To the NBA. You've heard of one and done?
Assuming you are talking about football, because that star sophomore can play one more year at his existing school and be eligible for the NFL, which requires that players be out of high school 3 years before entering the NFL. Under the existing college rule, if that star player transferred, sat out, and then played another year, he would be two years away from the NFL. If the "sit-out" rule is eliminated, this player might very well transfer to Alabama because it wouldn't delay his NFL entry date.
Maybe the existing transfer rule?
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,095
- 29,252
- 113
Wait, walk me through that one.
A player transferring to another school doesn't change when he'd be eligible for the NFL draft, regardless of what the transfer rule is. The NFL's rule on eligibility isn't affected if the player sits out or not. It's all based on the number of years it's been since they graduated high school. Maybe I'm missing your point.
P5 schools already have the autonomy from the NCAA to establish their own rules.
You literally answered your own question. Standout sophomores don't transfer to Alabama because they have to sit out of year.
If you really think ISU will do well under this proposal, just incredibly naive. If a slimeball like James Franklin convinces David Montgomery to transfer to PSU to replace Barkley, you think ISU will just be OK picking up a new HS kid or taking a transfer from PSU that Franklin cuts, or was already riding the pine? Delusional.
A star sophomore football player with NFL dreams doesn't transfer now because under the current rules it really doesn't make any sense. The player either delays his NFL entry by year if he decides to play after transferring and sitting out, or he loses a year of on-field experience and exposure if he sits out a year and transfers before playing a down for the new team (he might still benefit from the training facility). Coaches are less likely to pursue and invest in those guys because of the risk of them transferring, sitting out the year then deciding to leave for the NFL before playing a down in a game.
If the sit-out rule goes away, a star sophomore transfer becomes much more attractive for both sides. The player gets the on-field experience/exposure and the coaches don't have to worry about the guy taking off for the NFL before he plays a down.
Last edited:
Here are my feelings on the new rules. If they pass, there is going to be some chaos that ensues. You will have freshmen transferring on a whim because they were asked to redshirt instead of being given the ball right away, you are going to have talented players that coaches like Matt Campbell found and developed, leave at the drop of a hat to go to championship caliber programs. And you are going to have coaches constantly re-recruiting their own players to stay on campus.
I understand that many feel that it is more fair for athletes to be able to go where they want, when they want, but the commitment does go both ways. Football and basketball programs invest a lot into player recruitment and development. For all of that to turn into gold for some SEC team would be hard to recover from.
I do think there should be more options for players if their coach leaves, but I also don't think it's fair for a program to be decimated by their up and coming coach leaving and taking his best players with him.
Another concern is that we already have issues with programs that can't play by the rules, what's to stop them from tampering with any player that shows promise at a non-powerhouse program? Similar to issues with paying players, there is almost no way to regulate it and make it fair for all teams involved.
Yes there is a potential that ISU benefits from the new rules at some point, but I think there is more potential for the powerhouse programs to abuse it and make player free agency a nightmare.
The only solace I see right now is that, if these rules are put in place, we currently have a staff who is tech savvy and knows how to recruit at all levels to find talent.
I understand that many feel that it is more fair for athletes to be able to go where they want, when they want, but the commitment does go both ways. Football and basketball programs invest a lot into player recruitment and development. For all of that to turn into gold for some SEC team would be hard to recover from.
I do think there should be more options for players if their coach leaves, but I also don't think it's fair for a program to be decimated by their up and coming coach leaving and taking his best players with him.
Another concern is that we already have issues with programs that can't play by the rules, what's to stop them from tampering with any player that shows promise at a non-powerhouse program? Similar to issues with paying players, there is almost no way to regulate it and make it fair for all teams involved.
Yes there is a potential that ISU benefits from the new rules at some point, but I think there is more potential for the powerhouse programs to abuse it and make player free agency a nightmare.
The only solace I see right now is that, if these rules are put in place, we currently have a staff who is tech savvy and knows how to recruit at all levels to find talent.
If you think cheating and paying players is a problem now...wait until you can do it for a transfer that doesn't have to sit out.
Instead of HS kids that you can't really see how they pan out in front on huge crowds, high pressure, seeing how they'll handle college freedom, and if they can dominate at a college level...now you're going to KNOW all of that.
You need a sure thing at Power Forward next year? Here Kansas, check out this kid at XYZ...he likes nice cars, he's got a P5 body and is averaging 15/7 in conference play.
Yea...this is a bad idea. Unless limited to kids where coaches leave or the coach signs off on a 'not a good fit for our program / school, but leaving in good standing' letter. IE we're recruiting over him / he doesn't fit our style of play after all.
Not a "he's moving to be closer to his family in Utah...so Louisiana was a natural choice". : )
Instead of HS kids that you can't really see how they pan out in front on huge crowds, high pressure, seeing how they'll handle college freedom, and if they can dominate at a college level...now you're going to KNOW all of that.
You need a sure thing at Power Forward next year? Here Kansas, check out this kid at XYZ...he likes nice cars, he's got a P5 body and is averaging 15/7 in conference play.
Yea...this is a bad idea. Unless limited to kids where coaches leave or the coach signs off on a 'not a good fit for our program / school, but leaving in good standing' letter. IE we're recruiting over him / he doesn't fit our style of play after all.
Not a "he's moving to be closer to his family in Utah...so Louisiana was a natural choice". : )
There's also currently a concern of being injured while sitting out a year and never reaching that potential when they do get to play. Sit-out transfers are much less common in football than they are in basketball for some of these reasons. In basketball, the premier talents are more likely to just declare for the draft rather than sit out a year to play for a championship program. In football you would see schools like Alabama not willing to waste two years on the potential of a transfer when they can just recruit over anyone they have with another 5 star.
How about if this was in play now...Scott Frost just moves the (majority of USF) team with the staff to Lincoln.
This could turn coaching turn over into a nightmare as well. Buy a coach...get the players for free?
You say that's crazy...but A&M just guaranteed $75 million for a coach that finished 6-6 in the SEC...stupid, crazy, **** happens.
This could turn coaching turn over into a nightmare as well. Buy a coach...get the players for free?
You say that's crazy...but A&M just guaranteed $75 million for a coach that finished 6-6 in the SEC...stupid, crazy, **** happens.
Is there a date when students that transfer have to declare by?
Theoretically, could a team have a starting QB get hurt in spring practice and then poach another team's starting QB to play for them in the fall? I think this scenario would be very rare, but I'm trying to figure out the timing of transfers.
Losing Darius McNeill when we did sucked because we had to scramble in a short time frame, but losing an already established key piece after signing day has passed seems like a very scary possibility.
Theoretically, could a team have a starting QB get hurt in spring practice and then poach another team's starting QB to play for them in the fall? I think this scenario would be very rare, but I'm trying to figure out the timing of transfers.
Losing Darius McNeill when we did sucked because we had to scramble in a short time frame, but losing an already established key piece after signing day has passed seems like a very scary possibility.
