(01-31-2018 07:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2018 07:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-31-2018 04:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-31-2018 02:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-31-2018 01:36 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  As much as I am opposed to instant eligibility in general (to prevent smaller schools from becoming defacto farm systems), these proposals make sense.


If coaches have the freedom to come and go without penalty, so athletes if the coach leaves.

And coaches NEVER should have been able to block transfers to certain schools.

I don't agree with never. I believe that a coach should be able to block a transfer to any scheduled opponents during the span of eligibility for competitive reasons. If a player wants to transfer from East Central State the ECS coach should be able to block them from going to Middle Northern Tech if Middle Northern Tech is on their schedule every year.

That would be the only blocking I would be in favor of.

Why should a coach be able to take a new job with a school that is a scheduled opponent of their current school, but a player can't do the same?

Typically a coach takes his strategy, etc. with him when he goes and it's replaced by the next coach. He doesn't change his coaching strategy when a player leaves.

Yes, but that coach also takes very detailed knowledge of the abilities and tendencies of the players he leaves behind. His knowledge is likely much broader and deeper than that of a player who leaves.

I daresay that if both Dabo Swinney and Clemson's starting right defensive end both left Clemson this year, the former for FSU, the latter for South Carolina, FSU would know a whole lot more about Clemson's team next year than would SC.

Actually they would both have the same level of information, almost nothing, because the new coach is going to have a totally new strategy and approach to a game. They can tell them what they did the year before all they want and it's not going to help very much because of a new style of offense/defense/etc.