Like several other commissioners outside the Power 5, however, Aresco has questions about whether some of the areas initially included under the autonomy banner instead belong to all 32 conferences in Division I.

And one of those issues in particular — transfer rules — could very well be a fulcrum for how much power the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 are allowed to grab.

Last week, when Pac-12 presidents outlined their plan for reform in a letter to the other 53 presidents of power conference schools, one of the 10 bullet points was to "liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions."

What that liberalization encompasses, however, was left vague — perhaps intentionally. Even the power conference schools themselves aren't sure how far to take it.

But the proverbial line in the sand could be drawn if the Power 5 want to loosen the rules so much that athletes wouldn't have to sit out a year if they transfer.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...e/9741115/

1. include a mandatory 1 year player must sit out rule, but that player retains that year eligibility.

2. remove schools from the power of blocking transfers from joining specific conferences/schools by refusing to release them from their scholarship.

(05-30-2014 01:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Like several other commissioners outside the Power 5, however, Aresco has questions about whether some of the areas initially included under the autonomy banner instead belong to all 32 conferences in Division I.

And one of those issues in particular — transfer rules — could very well be a fulcrum for how much power the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 are allowed to grab.

Last week, when Pac-12 presidents outlined their plan for reform in a letter to the other 53 presidents of power conference schools, one of the 10 bullet points was to "liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions."

What that liberalization encompasses, however, was left vague — perhaps intentionally. Even the power conference schools themselves aren't sure how far to take it.

But the proverbial line in the sand could be drawn if the Power 5 want to loosen the rules so much that athletes wouldn't have to sit out a year if they transfer.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...e/9741115/

The fact is that the G5 will become a development squad for the P5 and Vandy will become a development squad for Alabama/LSU/Ohio State etc.

At the point in time a player can just transfer at will and play immediately....and be paid differently between schools.....then college sports is really and truly unmanageable and effectively dead.

(05-30-2014 01:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  1. include a mandatory 1 year player must sit out rule, but that player retains that year eligibility.

2. remove schools from the power of blocking transfers from joining specific conferences/schools by refusing to release them from their scholarship.

1. already passed last month. headed to board in August for final approval.

2. probably what will be proposed by the P5 autonomously.

(05-30-2014 01:12 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Like several other commissioners outside the Power 5, however, Aresco has questions about whether some of the areas initially included under the autonomy banner instead belong to all 32 conferences in Division I.

And one of those issues in particular — transfer rules — could very well be a fulcrum for how much power the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 are allowed to grab.

Last week, when Pac-12 presidents outlined their plan for reform in a letter to the other 53 presidents of power conference schools, one of the 10 bullet points was to "liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions."

What that liberalization encompasses, however, was left vague — perhaps intentionally. Even the power conference schools themselves aren't sure how far to take it.

But the proverbial line in the sand could be drawn if the Power 5 want to loosen the rules so much that athletes wouldn't have to sit out a year if they transfer.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...e/9741115/

The fact is that the G5 will become a development squad for the P5 and Vandy will become a development squad for Alabama/LSU/Ohio State etc.

At the point in time a player can just transfer at will and play immediately....and be paid differently between schools.....then college sports is really and truly unmanageable and effectively dead.

It wouldn't be that cut and dry though. It would create a real mess and be worse for athletics than pay for athletes. You would also have second string guys at Alabama transferring away on the promise of starting. These young athletes are quick to make poorly thought out decisions and a new rule would make things a lot worse.

(05-30-2014 01:20 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:12 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Like several other commissioners outside the Power 5, however, Aresco has questions about whether some of the areas initially included under the autonomy banner instead belong to all 32 conferences in Division I.

And one of those issues in particular — transfer rules — could very well be a fulcrum for how much power the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 are allowed to grab.

Last week, when Pac-12 presidents outlined their plan for reform in a letter to the other 53 presidents of power conference schools, one of the 10 bullet points was to "liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions."

What that liberalization encompasses, however, was left vague — perhaps intentionally. Even the power conference schools themselves aren't sure how far to take it.

But the proverbial line in the sand could be drawn if the Power 5 want to loosen the rules so much that athletes wouldn't have to sit out a year if they transfer.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...e/9741115/

The fact is that the G5 will become a development squad for the P5 and Vandy will become a development squad for Alabama/LSU/Ohio State etc.

At the point in time a player can just transfer at will and play immediately....and be paid differently between schools.....then college sports is really and truly unmanageable and effectively dead.

It wouldn't be that cut and dry though. It would create a real mess and be worse for athletics than pay for athletes. You would also have second string guys at Alabama transferring away on the promise of starting. These young athletes are quick to make poorly thought out decisions and a new rule would make things a lot worse.

Yeah, but do the 2nd string guys want to give up the Bama stipend for the ULM stipend?

It gets crazy.

(05-30-2014 01:12 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Like several other commissioners outside the Power 5, however, Aresco has questions about whether some of the areas initially included under the autonomy banner instead belong to all 32 conferences in Division I.

And one of those issues in particular — transfer rules — could very well be a fulcrum for how much power the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 are allowed to grab.

Last week, when Pac-12 presidents outlined their plan for reform in a letter to the other 53 presidents of power conference schools, one of the 10 bullet points was to "liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions."

What that liberalization encompasses, however, was left vague — perhaps intentionally. Even the power conference schools themselves aren't sure how far to take it.

But the proverbial line in the sand could be drawn if the Power 5 want to loosen the rules so much that athletes wouldn't have to sit out a year if they transfer.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...e/9741115/

The fact is that the G5 will become a development squad for the P5 and Vandy will become a development squad for Alabama/LSU/Ohio State etc...........

My view is just the opposite of yours. I forsee blue chip athletes that go to Alabama, Oklahoma, LSU etc., realizing they are stuck on the depth chart and not going to make the starting team and transferring to G5 schools and start immediately. Could be a real benefit for G5 schools. I think there would be a lot more players tranferring down than transferring up. That has always been the case.

(05-30-2014 01:27 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:20 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:12 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Like several other commissioners outside the Power 5, however, Aresco has questions about whether some of the areas initially included under the autonomy banner instead belong to all 32 conferences in Division I.

And one of those issues in particular — transfer rules — could very well be a fulcrum for how much power the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 are allowed to grab.

Last week, when Pac-12 presidents outlined their plan for reform in a letter to the other 53 presidents of power conference schools, one of the 10 bullet points was to "liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions."

What that liberalization encompasses, however, was left vague — perhaps intentionally. Even the power conference schools themselves aren't sure how far to take it.

But the proverbial line in the sand could be drawn if the Power 5 want to loosen the rules so much that athletes wouldn't have to sit out a year if they transfer.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...e/9741115/

The fact is that the G5 will become a development squad for the P5 and Vandy will become a development squad for Alabama/LSU/Ohio State etc.

At the point in time a player can just transfer at will and play immediately....and be paid differently between schools.....then college sports is really and truly unmanageable and effectively dead.

It wouldn't be that cut and dry though. It would create a real mess and be worse for athletics than pay for athletes. You would also have second string guys at Alabama transferring away on the promise of starting. These young athletes are quick to make poorly thought out decisions and a new rule would make things a lot worse.

Yeah, but do the 2nd string guys want to give up the Bama stipend for the ULM stipend?

It gets crazy.

I agree with the coaches in the article, it would create endless recruiting. It would only benefit the top 10-15 programs. Plus, the G5 schools who have to take 2 and 3 stars and bulk them up and coach them up, will just lose those guys after their redshirt freshman or sophomore years. It would be a mess.

Free transfer probably is no net impact overall because for every player transferring for greater glory at a name school another is transferring out to play because NFL doesn't scout the bench.

As for not wanting to give up stipend, kids transfer all the time to FCS and DII and football is an equivalency sport at those levels so not all of them are leaving a full ride to get a full ride as it is now.

The biggest thing with the transfer rules to be is the hypocrisy between of how it works for players and coaches. Coaches get a free market based salary and then can transfer anywhere at any time, with only the contracts themselves as a hindrance. In contrast, players commit under one coach, can see him gone in less than a year, can have a bad fit of a college, and aren't getting paid, but have very strict rules for leaving and remaining eligible.

There's big issues no matter how you do it, but that's never sat well with me.

So guess what all these extra 'assisstant coaches' that the SEC, and P5 in general, are going to be doing in the off season; there going to be going around the country looking to poach G5 school talent. Then if this kid doesn't have a 2.6 gpa going, BAM, double whammy for the G5 as they lose the player and get hit with an APR ding.

This is just one example of the mischief 'autonomy' can create under the guise of doing more for the student athlete. If the G5 and other D-I school Presidents and AD's don't see this I'd be shocked.

What a mess.

(05-30-2014 02:10 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The biggest thing with the transfer rules to be is the hypocrisy between of how it works for players and coaches. Coaches get a free market based salary and then can transfer anywhere at any time, with only the contracts themselves as a hindrance. In contrast, players commit under one coach, can see him gone in less than a year, can have a bad fit of a college, and aren't getting paid, but have very strict rules for leaving and remaining eligible.

There's big issues no matter how you do it, but that's never sat well with me.

Brian Harsin paid AState $1.75 million to leave. If Blake Anderson leaves after 2014 or 2015 he owes $3 million.

So what's the buyout for the kid who gets similar free transfer rights?

(05-30-2014 02:31 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  So guess what all these extra 'assisstant coaches' that the SEC, and P5 in general, are going to be doing in the off season; there going to be going around the country looking to poach G5 school talent. Then if this kid doesn't have a 2.6 gpa going, BAM, double whammy for the G5 as they lose the player and get hit with an APR ding.

This is just one example of the mischief 'autonomy' can create under the guise of doing more for the student athlete. If the G5 and other D-I school Presidents and AD's don't see this I'd be shocked.

What a mess.

Exactly. It will create a huge frenzy of "free agency" like we see in professional sports. Kids will be shopping themselves all over the country and schools will be courting them hard. It will be a circus.

(05-30-2014 01:20 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:12 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Like several other commissioners outside the Power 5, however, Aresco has questions about whether some of the areas initially included under the autonomy banner instead belong to all 32 conferences in Division I.

And one of those issues in particular — transfer rules — could very well be a fulcrum for how much power the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 are allowed to grab.

Last week, when Pac-12 presidents outlined their plan for reform in a letter to the other 53 presidents of power conference schools, one of the 10 bullet points was to "liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions."

What that liberalization encompasses, however, was left vague — perhaps intentionally. Even the power conference schools themselves aren't sure how far to take it.

But the proverbial line in the sand could be drawn if the Power 5 want to loosen the rules so much that athletes wouldn't have to sit out a year if they transfer.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...e/9741115/

The fact is that the G5 will become a development squad for the P5 and Vandy will become a development squad for Alabama/LSU/Ohio State etc.

At the point in time a player can just transfer at will and play immediately....and be paid differently between schools.....then college sports is really and truly unmanageable and effectively dead.

It wouldn't be that cut and dry though. It would create a real mess and be worse for athletics than pay for athletes. You would also have second string guys at Alabama transferring away on the promise of starting. These young athletes are quick to make poorly thought out decisions and a new rule would make things a lot worse.

Some might say that athletes need to be restricted so that they don't make poor decisions.

Others might say that athletes are being forced to sit out a year because the big boys want to keep their second and third stringers on their bench for depth instead of letting them immediately transfer to and start at another FBS program. And really it's not just the big boys; it's anyone who has depth and wants to keep it rather than let the second-stringer transfer -- for example, Oregon State had a backup QB the last two seasons who could have stepped in and started right away for at least a third of the teams in FBS, if the rules permitted it.

If the one-year waiting period was removed, there would be many more transfers out of the top programs, or between top programs, than the kind of transfers Hair says he's worried about in that article.

(05-30-2014 02:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 02:10 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The biggest thing with the transfer rules to be is the hypocrisy between of how it works for players and coaches. Coaches get a free market based salary and then can transfer anywhere at any time, with only the contracts themselves as a hindrance. In contrast, players commit under one coach, can see him gone in less than a year, can have a bad fit of a college, and aren't getting paid, but have very strict rules for leaving and remaining eligible.

There's big issues no matter how you do it, but that's never sat well with me.

Brian Harsin paid AState $1.75 million to leave. If Blake Anderson leaves after 2014 or 2015 he owes $3 million.

So what's the buyout for the kid who gets similar free transfer rights?

When you start paying the players, then you can start talking about imposing a buyout on them that is proportional to their salary.

(05-30-2014 01:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Free transfer probably is no net impact overall because for every player transferring for greater glory at a name school another is transferring out to play because NFL doesn't scout the bench.

As for not wanting to give up stipend, kids transfer all the time to FCS and DII and football is an equivalency sport at those levels so not all of them are leaving a full ride to get a full ride as it is now.

Not true. The players Alabama accepts on transfer will be starting quality. For instance, Alabama wont be taking a starting QB from NIU in order to sit him on the bench. Transfers like this will be to fill need position on the team. Players transferring out from Bama will be players that are buried on the Alabama depth chart. So the G5 will work with a 2-star, build him up for two years with strength training, feed him at the training table, coach him up for two years, and when he finally becomes the player the G5 team hoped he would be--he will get poached. In return, the G5 will get the highly touted player out of high school that never developed, the injured guy, or the fellow who wasn't ever the player people thought he was. Thats a net negative in my humble opinion.

(05-30-2014 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Free transfer probably is no net impact overall because for every player transferring for greater glory at a name school another is transferring out to play because NFL doesn't scout the bench.

As for not wanting to give up stipend, kids transfer all the time to FCS and DII and football is an equivalency sport at those levels so not all of them are leaving a full ride to get a full ride as it is now.

Not true. The players Alabama accepts on transfer will be starting quality. For instance, Alabama wont be taking a starting QB from NIU in order to sit him on the bench. Transfers like this will be to fill need position on the team. Players transferring out from Bama will be players that are buried on the Alabama depth chart. So the G5 will work with a 2-star, build him up for two years with strength training, feed him at the training table, coach him up for two years, and when he finally becomes the player the G5 team hoped he would be--he will get poached. In return, the G5 will get the highly touted player out of high school that never developed, the injured guy, or the fellow who wasn't ever the player people thought he was. Thats a net negative in my humble opinion.

No, the big boys are definitely hurt by backups transferring out, if they are good second-stringers, because that erodes their depth, and it's football and you always need depth because shtt happens. That's why they don't want to make transferring any easier than it is now. You're not going to see Meyer or Saban advocating a change that would allow transfers to play right away.

(05-30-2014 03:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Free transfer probably is no net impact overall because for every player transferring for greater glory at a name school another is transferring out to play because NFL doesn't scout the bench.

As for not wanting to give up stipend, kids transfer all the time to FCS and DII and football is an equivalency sport at those levels so not all of them are leaving a full ride to get a full ride as it is now.

Not true. The players Alabama accepts on transfer will be starting quality. For instance, Alabama wont be taking a starting QB from NIU in order to sit him on the bench. Transfers like this will be to fill need position on the team. Players transferring out from Bama will be players that are buried on the Alabama depth chart. So the G5 will work with a 2-star, build him up for two years with strength training, feed him at the training table, coach him up for two years, and when he finally becomes the player the G5 team hoped he would be--he will get poached. In return, the G5 will get the highly touted player out of high school that never developed, the injured guy, or the fellow who wasn't ever the player people thought he was. Thats a net negative in my humble opinion.

No, the big boys are definitely hurt by backups transferring out, if they are good second-stringers, because that erodes their depth, and it's football and you always need depth because shtt happens. That's why they don't want to make transferring any easier than it is now. You're not going to see Meyer or Saban advocating a change that would allow transfers to play right away.

Don't discount anything.

(05-30-2014 03:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 01:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Free transfer probably is no net impact overall because for every player transferring for greater glory at a name school another is transferring out to play because NFL doesn't scout the bench.

As for not wanting to give up stipend, kids transfer all the time to FCS and DII and football is an equivalency sport at those levels so not all of them are leaving a full ride to get a full ride as it is now.

Not true. The players Alabama accepts on transfer will be starting quality. For instance, Alabama wont be taking a starting QB from NIU in order to sit him on the bench. Transfers like this will be to fill need position on the team. Players transferring out from Bama will be players that are buried on the Alabama depth chart. So the G5 will work with a 2-star, build him up for two years with strength training, feed him at the training table, coach him up for two years, and when he finally becomes the player the G5 team hoped he would be--he will get poached. In return, the G5 will get the highly touted player out of high school that never developed, the injured guy, or the fellow who wasn't ever the player people thought he was. Thats a net negative in my humble opinion.

No, the big boys are definitely hurt by backups transferring out, if they are good second-stringers, because that erodes their depth, and it's football and you always need depth because shtt happens. That's why they don't want to make transferring any easier than it is now. You're not going to see Meyer or Saban advocating a change that would allow transfers to play right away.

Probably more like baseball where teams end up losing guys they thought they had all the time and will without a doubt cause changes to the signing and transfer process limiting them to certain windows because you don't want the #2 LB at Arkansas transferring to Tulsa AFTER signing day and you don't want to go into signing day thinking your sophmore QB is coming back next year when he isn't.

(05-30-2014 02:10 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The biggest thing with the transfer rules to be is the hypocrisy between of how it works for players and coaches. Coaches get a free market based salary and then can transfer anywhere at any time, with only the contracts themselves as a hindrance.

And if the hopes were high enough to deliver a long term guaranteed contract and the coach proceeds to perform badly enough, getting paid for year not to coach the team they were hire to coach.