Possible new transfer rules

[southernfriedCY]

Personally, I think this is a move in the right direction.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...antly-after-a-coaching-change-picks-up-steam/

 

[JimmyChitwood]

Personally, I think this is a move in the right direction.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...antly-after-a-coaching-change-picks-up-steam/

It only makes sense. This should have been done long ago.

 

[coolerifyoudid]

Atta boy Jamie!

"Either try to accept [the process or] try to change it," Pollard said. "But quit ******** about it."

 

[coolerifyoudid]

Also, how great is it for us to have our AD be in the headlines saying things like this:

"Basically, we're saying kids can go anywhere they want," Iowa State athletic director Jamie Pollard said. "For the first time ever in college athletics, the student-athlete is empowered."

 

[isu81]

Ha ha. He's also the one who said this right before we became "Transfer U"!

http://www.thegazette.com/2010/04/1...-addresses-cyclone-basketballs-transfer-mania

 

[chuckd4735]

Ha ha. He's also the one who said this right before we became "Transfer U"!

http://www.thegazette.com/2010/04/1...-addresses-cyclone-basketballs-transfer-mania

I know I have the same opinions today as I did in 2010.

 

[cyclonestans]

Ha ha. He's also the one who said this right before we became "Transfer U"!

http://www.thegazette.com/2010/04/1...-addresses-cyclone-basketballs-transfer-mania

I don't see the problem...he said it was an epidemic then and he still says its an epidemic now. Besides totally getting rid of transfers (which would be asinine) what are you implying he changed his stance on? I think he is just trying to put some better regulations and rules behind the transferring. Plus I don't think if this passes we will see that big of a jump in transfers.

 

[LarryISU]

Clearly Pollard has done a 180. Nothing wrong with that, a person should evolve as he matures and gains more wisdom and understanding of the world. It happens to probably almost everyone.

Personally, I can see this change as being more fair when a coaching change happens. Let's face it, when your coach leaves, there are probably several players that need to move on anyway. We sure had turnover when CMC took the reins in 2015 and in the long run I think it was good for everyone or most everyone. Most new coaches coming in are going to be fine with having to bring in as many of their own recruits as possible anyway to reload the roster.

 

[rholtgraves]

I think this appears to be a compromise but it is a step in the right direction. Some wanted all transfers to be like this. Some didn't want any. So we got this.

Pollard definitely changed his stance. But there is nothing wrong with that. It is a good thing.

 

[isu81]

I'm clearly not saying there's anything wrong with it. It was just funny that he made this comment within months of us becoming the destination for transfers.

 

[BigJCy]

25 minute conversation about it:

 

[cycfan1]

Wonder if it (ever) expands to position/recruiting coaches... would guess many of these kids have little or no contact/relationship with the actual head coach before getting to campus.

 

[Cardinal and Gold]

Am I reading it correctly that in the draft of the proposal it says that an athlete would not be able to transfer to the school that the head coach went to? If that is the case I do not like that part of the proposal. If there is room on the head coaches new roster and a student athlete pledged to play for that coach wouldn’t it make sense that the athlete should be able to follow that coach that he signed to play for? Or do people think that would just open up the flood gates to no end?

 

[kingcy]

Am I reading it correctly that in the draft of the proposal it says that an athlete would not be able to transfer to the school that the head coach went to? If that is the case I do not like that part of the proposal. If there is room on the head coaches new roster and a student athlete pledged to play for that coach wouldn’t it make sense that the athlete should be able to follow that coach that he signed to play for? Or do people think that would just open up the flood gates to no end?

They could transfer but would have to sit out a year. Letting a player or 20 follow a coach with no sit out rule would ruin some programs. Think of CMC left ISU and took 15 of the best players off the team. That would set back ISU for years.

 

[Cardinal and Gold]

They could transfer but would have to sit out a year. Letting a player or 20 follow a coach with no sit out rule would ruin some programs. Think of CMC left ISU and took 15 of the best players off the team. That would set back ISU for years.

Totally agree, but I don’t think the new team would have 15 openings. But regardless this rule change would really create an emphasis on coaching stability and we may see schools really push for more years and bigger buyouts when it comes to coaching contracts.

 

[kingcy]

Totally agree, but I don’t think the new team would have 15 openings. But regardless this rule change would really create an emphasis on coaching stability and we may see schools really push for more years and bigger buyouts when it comes to coaching contracts.

Why wouldn't they? You graduate kids every year, some kids will leave because of the coaching change. Its a lot easier to build a program with kids you know than kids you recruit out of High School.

 

[PGreen ISU '92]

Personally, I don’t like this potential new transfer rule. It will be to the advantage of the top tier Power 5 schools and be to the detriment of lower tier Power 5 schools like Iowa State and mid-majors. If a bigger school comes along and hires away your football or basketball coach due to no fault of that school then that school and its fans not only lose out on a great coach but that school and its fans could potentially see half of their team walking away. If an athlete has to sit out a year when they transfer that actually benefits the athlete as they get an extra year of free education and practice. I personally have never complained about the current rules. I think the current rules should stay in place.

 

[exCyDing]

I like the new proposal, particularly about letting a player leave to play elsewhere if the coach leaves. I'd be okay with some limits such as a player gets one freebie transfer but can still transfer again if the coach leaves.

I'm good with a player not being able to follow a coach to the new destination and be immediately available. That could wreck programs and open the door to malfeasance of paying a coach to get a player. Unlikely, but who's to say something couldn't happen.