One thing likely to change with new rules and regulations down the pipeline is the transfer rules. As suggested by the Associated Press, coaches may lose the power to limit where players transferring out will or will not be able to move. Coaches listing any number of schools a player may not transfer to has long been a problem. Afterall, if this is all about giving student-athletes the best chance to succeed academically and get the most out of college, why would a football coach be able to tell a kid he cannot go to State U. just because they are a conference rival or they happen to appear on the upcoming football schedule two years down the road? The good news is that power appears to be fading with new rules. The flip side of that though is now there may be opportunities for some of the top players in the American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, the MAC, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference may now have an opportunity to transfer to a power conference program, where the benefits to players will be significantly greater.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...nferences/

(06-20-2014 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing likely to change with new rules and regulations down the pipeline is the transfer rules. As suggested by the Associated Press, coaches may lose the power to limit where players transferring out will or will not be able to move. Coaches listing any number of schools a player may not transfer to has long been a problem. Afterall, if this is all about giving student-athletes the best chance to succeed academically and get the most out of college, why would a football coach be able to tell a kid he cannot go to State U. just because they are a conference rival or they happen to appear on the upcoming football schedule two years down the road? The good news is that power appears to be fading with new rules. The flip side of that though is now there may be opportunities for some of the top players in the American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, the MAC, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference may now have an opportunity to transfer to a power conference program, where the benefits to players will be significantly greater.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...nferences/

Well there are really two sides - P5 players, who aren't seeing the PT they wanted, will be able to freely transfer to G5 programs. Some of those guys just might be stars given a real opportunity.

Would this not just develop a situation where schools don't grant their release at all?

Since they potentially would not be able to have some say in where they go (right or wrong).

(06-20-2014 10:09 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  Would this not just develop a situation where schools don't grant their release at all?

I doubt it. If you don't release a player to a certain school, they can still go there, they just have restrictions (lose a year of eligibility, and must pay their own way the year they sit out). I would assume anything that removes that restriction, would remove the ability to block a transfer in any way.

I have long disagreed with this concept. I think it is total BS that the ACC prevents any in-conference transfers by taking away 2 years of eligibility.

(06-20-2014 10:08 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing likely to change with new rules and regulations down the pipeline is the transfer rules. As suggested by the Associated Press, coaches may lose the power to limit where players transferring out will or will not be able to move. Coaches listing any number of schools a player may not transfer to has long been a problem. Afterall, if this is all about giving student-athletes the best chance to succeed academically and get the most out of college, why would a football coach be able to tell a kid he cannot go to State U. just because they are a conference rival or they happen to appear on the upcoming football schedule two years down the road? The good news is that power appears to be fading with new rules. The flip side of that though is now there may be opportunities for some of the top players in the American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, the MAC, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference may now have an opportunity to transfer to a power conference program, where the benefits to players will be significantly greater.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...nferences/

Well there are really two sides - P5 players, who aren't seeing the PT they wanted, will be able to freely transfer to G5 programs. Some of those guys just might be stars given a real opportunity.

Yeah I don't know what the impact of this will be besides lots of transfers which isn't neccessarily a good thing. I can see it working both ways though like you said. I mean maybe Alabama or whomever lands two five star QB's and only one is playing. The other may roll and start at a P5 and be very very good. Really hard to tell the impact of something like this to be honest.

I think they should keep the sit out rule but tweak it a little to keep the # of transfers at a reasonable level. Remove the coach being able to block certain teams, maybe remove the sit out rule if the coach that recruit you leaves.

(06-20-2014 10:08 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Well there are really two sides - P5 players, who aren't seeing the PT they wanted, will be able to freely transfer to G5 programs.

Maybe so, but I suspect any changes that the P5 want will not be in our favor, nor do I buy the argument that they are primarily concerned about the players.

I'm less worried about football and more worried about basketball. The transfer issue in basketball is already a big problem. There was a list of something like 500 transfers this offseason.

At least in football if you lose one player, your team is still pretty viable if you get a decent replacement. In basketball, losing one or two players can decimate a team.

It has nithing to do with players or their education, tell me academically speaking which is a better school, Tulane or LSU, Rice or TTU, SMU or Texas, Cinny or NC State?

(06-20-2014 10:15 AM)PT_american Wrote:  I think they should keep the sit out rule but tweak it a little to keep the # of transfers at a reasonable level. Remove the coach being able to block certain teams, maybe remove the sit out rule if the coach that recruit you leaves.

I think loosening the rule is a better idea than removing it. Allowing free transfers would be chaotic for everyone, coaches and current players. What I mean is if you allow open transfers, you can affect the players at the destination school as well. Imagine you are a QB who goes somewhere where there is an opening for the starting job after the starter graduated. You are now competing with only other players who haven't started or other freshman, and you know if you win the job, you have a leg up on any future freshman or transfers. Now after the competition starts, 2 former starters from LSU and Washington show up, and neither have to sit out. Now you compete with them as well, and now they have an advantage on you, as players with starting experience. You didn't know you had this extra competition, and now it's too late to go anywhere else. I am just using this as an example of how the rule can be unfair to players too: the ones at the destination school.

I don't like the idea of loosening the rules just because a coach leaves though, because you then give coaches almost universal job security. "If you fire me, half the team will leave" sort of thing.

(06-20-2014 10:30 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  It has nithing to do with players or their education, tell me academically speaking which is a better school, Tulane or LSU, Rice or TTU, SMU or Texas, Cinny or NC State?

Texas is much better than SMU at Engineering, as is A&M... but SMU has an amazing business program.

(06-20-2014 10:35 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:30 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  It has nithing to do with players or their education, tell me academically speaking which is a better school, Tulane or LSU, Rice or TTU, SMU or Texas, Cinny or NC State?

Texas is much better than SMU at Engineering, as is A&M... but SMU has an amazing business program.

and how many athletes study Engineering? Medical fields? Law? Sciance? Most are communications, bussiness, Phys Ed, Liberal Arta majors. Doens't matter much with those fields.

(06-20-2014 10:08 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing likely to change with new rules and regulations down the pipeline is the transfer rules. As suggested by the Associated Press, coaches may lose the power to limit where players transferring out will or will not be able to move. Coaches listing any number of schools a player may not transfer to has long been a problem. Afterall, if this is all about giving student-athletes the best chance to succeed academically and get the most out of college, why would a football coach be able to tell a kid he cannot go to State U. just because they are a conference rival or they happen to appear on the upcoming football schedule two years down the road? The good news is that power appears to be fading with new rules. The flip side of that though is now there may be opportunities for some of the top players in the American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, the MAC, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference may now have an opportunity to transfer to a power conference program, where the benefits to players will be significantly greater.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...nferences/

Well there are really two sides - P5 players, who aren't seeing the PT they wanted, will be able to freely transfer to G5 programs. Some of those guys just might be stars given a real opportunity.

Isn't that a net talent drain from the G5? The P5 is losing guys that didn't pan out and can't start but the G5 is losing guys that DID pan out and CAN start at the P5 level. I'd rather see this handled with 1 year or 4 year scholarships. No free transfer with 4yr scholies. Free transfer when under one year scholies. Simple--gives the athletes something in exchange for losing easy transfer rules.

(06-20-2014 10:50 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:35 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:30 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  It has nithing to do with players or their education, tell me academically speaking which is a better school, Tulane or LSU, Rice or TTU, SMU or Texas, Cinny or NC State?

Texas is much better than SMU at Engineering, as is A&M... but SMU has an amazing business program.

and how many athletes study Engineering? Medical fields? Law? Sciance? Most are communications, bussiness, Phys Ed, Liberal Arta majors. Doens't matter much with those fields.

That's very true. It was just an observation. In all honesty, I don't like a lot of the 'junk' majors that a lot of athletes today are getting as I think it devalues the entire collegiate academic system a bit. A lot of those majors could be 2 year programs if the schools didn't want the athletes for the $$$.

(06-20-2014 12:15 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  In all honesty, I don't like a lot of the 'junk' majors that a lot of athletes today are getting as I think it devalues the entire collegiate academic system a bit.

I don't buy that. Many of those are not "junk" majors at all, but they are not "research" majors. I was a Mass media/Political science major. I had to actually do more credit hours than a pre-med major, for example. However most of my classes involved far less research and thus less time. But, my my production classed did involve some out of class work though. My polic sci classed did not?

So to ask, is Political science a "junk major" that devalues the experience? Then why did it involve less class hours and less out of class commitment than my communications major? Not being a hardass, just proving a point as I found poli sci to be so much easier than my communications classwork.

Athletes are generally advised to chose majors that require less out of class commitments and are more liberal with allowing you to miss classes. It is less about choosing easy majors and more about shying away from overly demanding ones, ones that don't allow you to fully devote the right amount of time to both. For example, when you go to law or medical school, they highly advise against holding any sort of job while doing so, because you cannot properly commit enough time to both. So this eliminates many research based majors, as well as pre-med. Further, athletes spend a lot of time training, practicing, and studying their sport. It is natural that since they have an expertise in that area, they may want a career that allows them to work in that field. That leads to a lot of Sports Admin, Business, physical therapy, sports injury, and communications majors. They aren't "junk," they are just what is natural to work in the sports field.

One thing to add though: you see a lot more variances in majors now adays with the advent of online classes, and wifi available everywhere. Student athletes now have more resources available should the choose a field that demands more of their time.

(06-20-2014 12:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 12:15 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  In all honesty, I don't like a lot of the 'junk' majors that a lot of athletes today are getting as I think it devalues the entire collegiate academic system a bit.

I don't buy that. Many of those are not "junk" majors at all, but they are not "research" majors. I was a Mass media/Political science major. I had to actually do more credit hours than a pre-med major, for example. However most of my classes involved far less research and thus less time. But, my my production classed did involve some out of class work though. My polic sci classed did not?

Is Political science a "junk major" that devalues the experience? Then why did it involve less class hours and less out of class commitment than my communications major?

Lol, a friend of mine and I jest with another friend of ours about being a poli-sci... It's not what I was talking about. There are for sure a lot of arts and sciences that are legitimate majors. I'm really talking about majors that D1 schools have added in the last 30? years. Some of the Phys Eds or Athletic Training, or things like "African American Studies" or Interdisciplinary studies.

People argue that they actually DO train the kids for the jobs they can actually go get, but so could a Vo Tech if they had the majors and an athletic program.

Really, it's more of the 2 year degrees masquerading as 4 year degrees that perturb me a bit.

(06-20-2014 10:08 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing likely to change with new rules and regulations down the pipeline is the transfer rules. As suggested by the Associated Press, coaches may lose the power to limit where players transferring out will or will not be able to move. Coaches listing any number of schools a player may not transfer to has long been a problem. Afterall, if this is all about giving student-athletes the best chance to succeed academically and get the most out of college, why would a football coach be able to tell a kid he cannot go to State U. just because they are a conference rival or they happen to appear on the upcoming football schedule two years down the road? The good news is that power appears to be fading with new rules. The flip side of that though is now there may be opportunities for some of the top players in the American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, the MAC, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference may now have an opportunity to transfer to a power conference program, where the benefits to players will be significantly greater.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...nferences/

Well there are really two sides - P5 players, who aren't seeing the PT they wanted, will be able to freely transfer to G5 programs. Some of those guys just might be stars given a real opportunity.

Exactly.....I see this as great thing for G5 schools. How many kids have ever left a G5 type school and transfered up to a P5 type school. Almost none. How many players have left a P5 type school and transferred down to a G5 type school.....a lot.

This rule will just expand the situation and greatly benefit G5 schools IMO.

PS--Kellen Moore would never have left Boise IMO. Bad example by Benson, plus using anything Benson says as a resourece is not a good choice.

(06-20-2014 10:50 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:35 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:30 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  It has nithing to do with players or their education, tell me academically speaking which is a better school, Tulane or LSU, Rice or TTU, SMU or Texas, Cinny or NC State?

Texas is much better than SMU at Engineering, as is A&M... but SMU has an amazing business program.

and how many athletes study Engineering? Medical fields? Law? Sciance? Most are communications, bussiness, Phys Ed, Liberal Arta majors. Doens't matter much with those fields.

You seem to be arguing against yourself. From what you are now saying, education does not matter so why say some schools academics are better than others, since the athletes do not study the academic subjects anyway..

(06-20-2014 01:18 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:50 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:35 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:30 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  It has nithing to do with players or their education, tell me academically speaking which is a better school, Tulane or LSU, Rice or TTU, SMU or Texas, Cinny or NC State?

Texas is much better than SMU at Engineering, as is A&M... but SMU has an amazing business program.

and how many athletes study Engineering? Medical fields? Law? Sciance? Most are communications, bussiness, Phys Ed, Liberal Arta majors. Doens't matter much with those fields.

You seem to be arguing against yourself. From what you are now saying, education does not matter so why say some schools academics are better than others, since the athletes do not study the academic subjects anyway..

+1

You just got Logic'd by a Mustang. Congrats. hahaha

(06-20-2014 01:18 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:50 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:35 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 10:30 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  It has nithing to do with players or their education, tell me academically speaking which is a better school, Tulane or LSU, Rice or TTU, SMU or Texas, Cinny or NC State?

Texas is much better than SMU at Engineering, as is A&M... but SMU has an amazing business program.

and how many athletes study Engineering? Medical fields? Law? Sciance? Most are communications, bussiness, Phys Ed, Liberal Arta majors. Doens't matter much with those fields.

You seem to be arguing against yourself. From what you are now saying, education does not matter so why say some schools academics are better than others, since the athletes do not study the academic subjects anyway..

Not at all, the is countering the writers suggestion that athletes would transfer to a school with better academics for academic reasons. We both know that is a lie. It would be for more pocket money, and tv exposure to improve draft status. The only ones that would worried about academics are those with little to no chance to play at the next level, and wouldn't be offered a spot on a P5 team. It all BS.