What if you had a rule that said that when you award an athletic scholarship, you can't revoke it as long as the athlete carries a 2.5 GPA or better, but an athlete with a 2.5 doesn't have to sit out a year if he transfers? Maybe that would motivate athletes who now have little interest in classwork.

(07-21-2014 01:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 01:08 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 11:48 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 11:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think there is a chance the transfer rules get changed to where a G5 guy could transfer into a p5 school and play immediately. i think that is one of the major sticking points quite frankly that the G5 will not bend on.

And this is where all the adults in college sports (not just the G5 or P5 or whomever) have it wrong.

They are stuck on this model of treating student-athletes as indentured servants, rather than students or employees. They want it to be very difficult for the athlete to cut ties with the school while at the same time it is very easy for the school to kick the athlete to the curb any time they want to.

If the athlete was a regular student, there would be no such restrictions. If an engineering major wants to transfer from a small school to, say, Georgia Tech because GT has an excellent rep in engineering, or because almost all their engineering grads get good jobs -- no one tells the student that he or she can't take engineering courses for a full year after transferring. If the athlete was an employee, again, no such restrictions. A lab technician at a small university gets a better paying job at GT, or maybe they just want to live in Atlanta -- the lab tech doesn't have to stay out of the lab or twiddle their thumbs for a year before starting their new job.

This is one instance where trying to compare a regular student versus an athlete does NOT work.

The athletes can still transfer academically without penalty. We are talking about an extra-curricular activity that they were recruited to a school for.

Why should say, Weber State, that took a chance on an under-recruited kid like Damian Lilliard have to worry about coaching him up, getting him great, then Utah swooping in and stealing him? That is insane.



if anything, college should be stricter on the coaches as well.

And what if Weber ST. has a great freshman QB and this guy can't play, but he has a chance at Utah. Same thing would apply with a drama major. Would you say they couldn't do plays at their new school for a year? I'm totally with Wedge on this.

Have big penalties for recruiting other's students so that if they get caught, the cost is way too much. But allow the students to do things that they believe are in their best interest.

The chances that Weber has a QB that isn't starting for them but could start for Utah are on the order of nil.


And again, you can't equate athletics (especially football and basketball) with regular students. If they were the same, this board wouldn't exist.

(07-21-2014 01:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 01:08 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 11:48 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 11:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think there is a chance the transfer rules get changed to where a G5 guy could transfer into a p5 school and play immediately. i think that is one of the major sticking points quite frankly that the G5 will not bend on.

And this is where all the adults in college sports (not just the G5 or P5 or whomever) have it wrong.

They are stuck on this model of treating student-athletes as indentured servants, rather than students or employees. They want it to be very difficult for the athlete to cut ties with the school while at the same time it is very easy for the school to kick the athlete to the curb any time they want to.

If the athlete was a regular student, there would be no such restrictions. If an engineering major wants to transfer from a small school to, say, Georgia Tech because GT has an excellent rep in engineering, or because almost all their engineering grads get good jobs -- no one tells the student that he or she can't take engineering courses for a full year after transferring. If the athlete was an employee, again, no such restrictions. A lab technician at a small university gets a better paying job at GT, or maybe they just want to live in Atlanta -- the lab tech doesn't have to stay out of the lab or twiddle their thumbs for a year before starting their new job.

This is one instance where trying to compare a regular student versus an athlete does NOT work.

The athletes can still transfer academically without penalty. We are talking about an extra-curricular activity that they were recruited to a school for.

Why should say, Weber State, that took a chance on an under-recruited kid like Damian Lilliard have to worry about coaching him up, getting him great, then Utah swooping in and stealing him? That is insane.

Why? Because it's not reciprocal. If Weber State gives a scholarship to a player who ends up disappointing them (obviously not Lillard), then they can and do tell the kid that his playing time is gone and his scholarship will not be renewed, forcing him to transfer out. That happens every single year at schools all over the country, P5, or G5, or no-football schools, you name it. And even when they force the player out, the player has to sit for a year before playing at his new school. Basketball coaches, in particular, are notorious for starting a job at a new school with the condition that they be allowed to revoke as many scholarships as they want so they can fill their scholarship limit with guys they recruited.

If schools guaranteed tuition, r&b, and "full cost of attendance" not just for one year, but for every semester/quarter that the athlete is enrolled in school, as long as they want, until they are awarded their bachelor's degree (as Delany once suggested), then you would have something closer to a two-way street.

Also, if a player is not on scholarship, your reasons for restricting his/her transfer go out the window entirely.

I agree that scholarships should be for four/five years (as long as academic progress, etc are maintained).


And definitely if a player has a schollie revoked they could transfer with no penalty (as long as they are in good academic standing).

That school took a chance on that player. Probably did not award scholarships to several other
potential players to go with them. What happens if he can just transfer out and play immediately.
The school is left with a hole to fill. There are players that would transfer every year if they could.
Meanwhile is hard to maintain a football team with all the parts if easy immediate transfer is allowed.

A college coach that has recruited a bunch of kids to play a certain style, and then the coach leaves for another program, leaving the kids stranded in a bad situation is where the NCAA needs to be lenient on transfer.

I agree this is a tough call
Coaches roll all the time, students can move at will
you gotta let them transfer. they all ready move
can't get that bad

(07-21-2014 09:32 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  I agree this is a tough call
Coaches roll all the time, students can move at will
you gotta let them transfer. they all ready move
can't get that bad

I don't know. Speaking as a fan of a school that has had 5 coaches in 5 years, I shudder to think what our football program would have looked like in the early years without the year sit out requirement.

I worry that messing with the transfer rules is going to cause serious problems. There needs to be a consequence of some sort for signing an NLI with a school, and then just choosing to transfer away from that school for no reason.

(07-21-2014 09:32 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  I agree this is a tough call
Coaches roll all the time, students can move at will
you gotta let them transfer. they all ready move
can't get that bad

Students are not under a contract. Coaches also pay a fee for buying out their contract when they leave early. Or the hiring team does. So perhaps the school getting the player pays for the player to be released. awwwww now we are talking

These are all examples of why the p5 will have transfers as a autonomous issue in two years. Also doesnt it stand to reason you would initially ask for control over things people agree on in order to get autonomy. The ability to add autonomous issues later will allow the p5 control over g5 programs. Lets face it if autonomy passes then div 4 is here. Dont be nieve the p5 does not have the interest of student athletes or the rest of d1 at heart. What they are doing is calculated and self serving.

In my mind there is no difference in Junior College, FCS, DII or DIII division players transferring to G5 schools than G5 players transferring to P5 schools. It seems the G5 fans on here have a double standard.

I think that if you freed up every athlete to transfer to any school at any time - few would. Teams would be more likely to recruit people that actually want to go to their school instead of using the school as a stepping stone, and people do not necessarily want to rip up their lives at the drop of a hat, especially when they see that they probably are not going to be playing in the NFL or NBA.

I think every student-athlete-employee-indentured servant should have at least one free transfer without sitting out. That should handle 90% of the situations. Students should then be able to transfer without sitting out to any school they want if their scholarship is pulled, they go to graduate school, or they have a life-changing event. Coaches should not be able to determine whether a player is released from a scholarship, and be able to hold the player back just for spite.

Back to Dungeons & Dragons for you guys I guess...

(07-22-2014 07:34 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:   In my mind there is no difference in Junior College, 1AA. DII or DIII division players transferring to G5 schools than G5 players transferring to P5 schools. It seems the G5 fans on here have a double standard.

1AA doesn't exist anymore but anyway a player has to sit out a year if they transfer to a G5 school from an FCS school. Same as transferring from g5 to p5 or vice a versa.
A junior college player is usually out of eligibility at that level when they transfer.

looks pretty consistent to me

(07-23-2014 08:55 AM)billings Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 07:34 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:   In my mind there is no difference in Junior College, 1AA. DII or DIII division players transferring to G5 schools than G5 players transferring to P5 schools. It seems the G5 fans on here have a double standard.

1AA doesn't exist anymore but anyway a player has to sit out a year if they transfer to a G5 school from an FCS school. Same as transferring from g5 to p5 or vice a versa.
A junior college player is usually out of eligibility at that level when they transfer.

looks pretty consistent to me

1AA does not exist, you are correct but the FCS schools are the old 1AA teams.

(07-23-2014 10:25 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 08:55 AM)billings Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 07:34 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:   In my mind there is no difference in Junior College, 1AA. DII or DIII division players transferring to G5 schools than G5 players transferring to P5 schools. It seems the G5 fans on here have a double standard.

1AA doesn't exist anymore but anyway a player has to sit out a year if they transfer to a G5 school from an FCS school. Same as transferring from g5 to p5 or vice a versa.
A junior college player is usually out of eligibility at that level when they transfer.

looks pretty consistent to me

1AA does not exist, you are correct but the FCS schools are the old !AA teams.

and transfers do have to sit out one year when transferring TO a G5 school

(07-21-2014 01:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 01:08 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 11:48 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 11:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think there is a chance the transfer rules get changed to where a G5 guy could transfer into a p5 school and play immediately. i think that is one of the major sticking points quite frankly that the G5 will not bend on.

And this is where all the adults in college sports (not just the G5 or P5 or whomever) have it wrong.

They are stuck on this model of treating student-athletes as indentured servants, rather than students or employees. They want it to be very difficult for the athlete to cut ties with the school while at the same time it is very easy for the school to kick the athlete to the curb any time they want to.

If the athlete was a regular student, there would be no such restrictions. If an engineering major wants to transfer from a small school to, say, Georgia Tech because GT has an excellent rep in engineering, or because almost all their engineering grads get good jobs -- no one tells the student that he or she can't take engineering courses for a full year after transferring. If the athlete was an employee, again, no such restrictions. A lab technician at a small university gets a better paying job at GT, or maybe they just want to live in Atlanta -- the lab tech doesn't have to stay out of the lab or twiddle their thumbs for a year before starting their new job.

This is one instance where trying to compare a regular student versus an athlete does NOT work.

The athletes can still transfer academically without penalty. We are talking about an extra-curricular activity that they were recruited to a school for.

Why should say, Weber State, that took a chance on an under-recruited kid like Damian Lilliard have to worry about coaching him up, getting him great, then Utah swooping in and stealing him? That is insane.

Why? Because it's not reciprocal. If Weber State gives a scholarship to a player who ends up disappointing them (obviously not Lillard), then they can and do tell the kid that his playing time is gone and his scholarship will not be renewed, forcing him to transfer out. That happens every single year at schools all over the country, P5, or G5, or no-football schools, you name it. And even when they force the player out, the player has to sit for a year before playing at his new school. Basketball coaches, in particular, are notorious for starting a job at a new school with the condition that they be allowed to revoke as many scholarships as they want so they can fill their scholarship limit with guys they recruited.

If schools guaranteed tuition, r&b, and "full cost of attendance" not just for one year, but for every semester/quarter that the athlete is enrolled in school, as long as they want, until they are awarded their bachelor's degree (as Delany once suggested), then you would have something closer to a two-way street.

Also, if a player is not on scholarship, your reasons for restricting his/her transfer go out the window entirely.

Wait if somebody on a standard scholarship or grant does not perform up to expectations (the expectations are typically grades or work completed) they can and do lose the scholarship why should athletes be held to a different standard?

(07-23-2014 09:00 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 01:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 01:08 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 11:48 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 11:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I don't think there is a chance the transfer rules get changed to where a G5 guy could transfer into a p5 school and play immediately. i think that is one of the major sticking points quite frankly that the G5 will not bend on.

And this is where all the adults in college sports (not just the G5 or P5 or whomever) have it wrong.

They are stuck on this model of treating student-athletes as indentured servants, rather than students or employees. They want it to be very difficult for the athlete to cut ties with the school while at the same time it is very easy for the school to kick the athlete to the curb any time they want to.

If the athlete was a regular student, there would be no such restrictions. If an engineering major wants to transfer from a small school to, say, Georgia Tech because GT has an excellent rep in engineering, or because almost all their engineering grads get good jobs -- no one tells the student that he or she can't take engineering courses for a full year after transferring. If the athlete was an employee, again, no such restrictions. A lab technician at a small university gets a better paying job at GT, or maybe they just want to live in Atlanta -- the lab tech doesn't have to stay out of the lab or twiddle their thumbs for a year before starting their new job.

This is one instance where trying to compare a regular student versus an athlete does NOT work.

The athletes can still transfer academically without penalty. We are talking about an extra-curricular activity that they were recruited to a school for.

Why should say, Weber State, that took a chance on an under-recruited kid like Damian Lilliard have to worry about coaching him up, getting him great, then Utah swooping in and stealing him? That is insane.

Why? Because it's not reciprocal. If Weber State gives a scholarship to a player who ends up disappointing them (obviously not Lillard), then they can and do tell the kid that his playing time is gone and his scholarship will not be renewed, forcing him to transfer out. That happens every single year at schools all over the country, P5, or G5, or no-football schools, you name it. And even when they force the player out, the player has to sit for a year before playing at his new school. Basketball coaches, in particular, are notorious for starting a job at a new school with the condition that they be allowed to revoke as many scholarships as they want so they can fill their scholarship limit with guys they recruited.

If schools guaranteed tuition, r&b, and "full cost of attendance" not just for one year, but for every semester/quarter that the athlete is enrolled in school, as long as they want, until they are awarded their bachelor's degree (as Delany once suggested), then you would have something closer to a two-way street.

Also, if a player is not on scholarship, your reasons for restricting his/her transfer go out the window entirely.

Wait if somebody on a standard scholarship or grant does not perform up to expectations (the expectations are typically grades or work completed) they can and do lose the scholarship why should athletes be held to a different standard?

Let's look at your scenario, then.

Engineering major at GT loses his engineering scholarship by failing to maintain a 2.0 gpa.

Do his engineering professors have the power to restrict where he can transfer to? Can they prevent him from transferring to another ACC school? Can they make him sit out a year before taking any classes at his new school?

(07-23-2014 10:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 09:00 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 01:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 01:08 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 11:48 AM)Wedge Wrote:  And this is where all the adults in college sports (not just the G5 or P5 or whomever) have it wrong.

They are stuck on this model of treating student-athletes as indentured servants, rather than students or employees. They want it to be very difficult for the athlete to cut ties with the school while at the same time it is very easy for the school to kick the athlete to the curb any time they want to.

If the athlete was a regular student, there would be no such restrictions. If an engineering major wants to transfer from a small school to, say, Georgia Tech because GT has an excellent rep in engineering, or because almost all their engineering grads get good jobs -- no one tells the student that he or she can't take engineering courses for a full year after transferring. If the athlete was an employee, again, no such restrictions. A lab technician at a small university gets a better paying job at GT, or maybe they just want to live in Atlanta -- the lab tech doesn't have to stay out of the lab or twiddle their thumbs for a year before starting their new job.

This is one instance where trying to compare a regular student versus an athlete does NOT work.

The athletes can still transfer academically without penalty. We are talking about an extra-curricular activity that they were recruited to a school for.

Why should say, Weber State, that took a chance on an under-recruited kid like Damian Lilliard have to worry about coaching him up, getting him great, then Utah swooping in and stealing him? That is insane.

Why? Because it's not reciprocal. If Weber State gives a scholarship to a player who ends up disappointing them (obviously not Lillard), then they can and do tell the kid that his playing time is gone and his scholarship will not be renewed, forcing him to transfer out. That happens every single year at schools all over the country, P5, or G5, or no-football schools, you name it. And even when they force the player out, the player has to sit for a year before playing at his new school. Basketball coaches, in particular, are notorious for starting a job at a new school with the condition that they be allowed to revoke as many scholarships as they want so they can fill their scholarship limit with guys they recruited.

If schools guaranteed tuition, r&b, and "full cost of attendance" not just for one year, but for every semester/quarter that the athlete is enrolled in school, as long as they want, until they are awarded their bachelor's degree (as Delany once suggested), then you would have something closer to a two-way street.

Also, if a player is not on scholarship, your reasons for restricting his/her transfer go out the window entirely.

Wait if somebody on a standard scholarship or grant does not perform up to expectations (the expectations are typically grades or work completed) they can and do lose the scholarship why should athletes be held to a different standard?

Let's look at your scenario, then.

Engineering major at GT loses his engineering scholarship by failing to maintain a 2.0 gpa.

Do his engineering professors have the power to restrict where he can transfer to? Can they prevent him from transferring to another ACC school? Can they make him sit out a year before taking any classes at his new school?

Of course they cannot and the transfers by student athletes will soon be changing!

(07-23-2014 10:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 09:00 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 01:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 01:08 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-21-2014 11:48 AM)Wedge Wrote:  And this is where all the adults in college sports (not just the G5 or P5 or whomever) have it wrong.

They are stuck on this model of treating student-athletes as indentured servants, rather than students or employees. They want it to be very difficult for the athlete to cut ties with the school while at the same time it is very easy for the school to kick the athlete to the curb any time they want to.

If the athlete was a regular student, there would be no such restrictions. If an engineering major wants to transfer from a small school to, say, Georgia Tech because GT has an excellent rep in engineering, or because almost all their engineering grads get good jobs -- no one tells the student that he or she can't take engineering courses for a full year after transferring. If the athlete was an employee, again, no such restrictions. A lab technician at a small university gets a better paying job at GT, or maybe they just want to live in Atlanta -- the lab tech doesn't have to stay out of the lab or twiddle their thumbs for a year before starting their new job.

This is one instance where trying to compare a regular student versus an athlete does NOT work.

The athletes can still transfer academically without penalty. We are talking about an extra-curricular activity that they were recruited to a school for.

Why should say, Weber State, that took a chance on an under-recruited kid like Damian Lilliard have to worry about coaching him up, getting him great, then Utah swooping in and stealing him? That is insane.

Why? Because it's not reciprocal. If Weber State gives a scholarship to a player who ends up disappointing them (obviously not Lillard), then they can and do tell the kid that his playing time is gone and his scholarship will not be renewed, forcing him to transfer out. That happens every single year at schools all over the country, P5, or G5, or no-football schools, you name it. And even when they force the player out, the player has to sit for a year before playing at his new school. Basketball coaches, in particular, are notorious for starting a job at a new school with the condition that they be allowed to revoke as many scholarships as they want so they can fill their scholarship limit with guys they recruited.

If schools guaranteed tuition, r&b, and "full cost of attendance" not just for one year, but for every semester/quarter that the athlete is enrolled in school, as long as they want, until they are awarded their bachelor's degree (as Delany once suggested), then you would have something closer to a two-way street.

Also, if a player is not on scholarship, your reasons for restricting his/her transfer go out the window entirely.

Wait if somebody on a standard scholarship or grant does not perform up to expectations (the expectations are typically grades or work completed) they can and do lose the scholarship why should athletes be held to a different standard?

Let's look at your scenario, then.

Engineering major at GT loses his engineering scholarship by failing to maintain a 2.0 gpa.

Do his engineering professors have the power to restrict where he can transfer to? Can they prevent him from transferring to another ACC school? Can they make him sit out a year before taking any classes at his new school?

Will engineering that student get a scholarship anywhere else after failing so badly? Only way I would see it would be to go to a much lower quality school hey wait that is like going down a division...

(07-22-2014 09:28 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  Back to Dungeons & Dragons for you guys I guess...

My level 12 elf is better than your level 4 warrior!!! hahaha