(08-14-2014 11:06 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 10:30 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 10:20 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  It's gone way down hill, but every now and then, the NYTimes still delivers the goods. Outstanding article, and completely true.

The Times has gone downhill? What are you talking about. They are the last great American Newspaper.

Only if you vote as a democrat.

NO, STOP THAT RIGHT NOW!! NO politic talk in here!

A change in the transfer rule would be devastating for the G5's.

(08-14-2014 11:25 AM)PGPirate Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:06 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 10:30 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 10:20 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  It's gone way down hill, but every now and then, the NYTimes still delivers the goods. Outstanding article, and completely true.

The Times has gone downhill? What are you talking about. They are the last great American Newspaper.

Only if you vote as a democrat.

NO, STOP THAT RIGHT NOW!! NO politic talk in here!

My sincerest apologizes, my bad, but it was a softball, i had to take a swing.

(08-14-2014 11:29 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  A change in the transfer rule would be devastating for the G5's.

Yep. That one scares me.

(08-14-2014 11:41 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:29 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  A change in the transfer rule would be devastating for the G5's.

Yep. That one scares me.

The G5 and FCS schools can outvote the P5 on this issue. Plus SMU has received some great transfers from P5 schools so it can work in reverse too.

(08-14-2014 11:49 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:41 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:29 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  A change in the transfer rule would be devastating for the G5's.

Yep. That one scares me.

The G5 and FCS schools can outvote the P5 on this issue. Plus SMU has received some great transfers from P5 schools so it can work in reverse too.

Yeah I thought the transfer rules and scholarship limits weren't part of autonomy?

(08-14-2014 11:58 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:49 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:41 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:29 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  A change in the transfer rule would be devastating for the G5's.

Yep. That one scares me.

The G5 and FCS schools can outvote the P5 on this issue. Plus SMU has received some great transfers from P5 schools so it can work in reverse too.

Yeah I thought the transfer rules and scholarship limits weren't part of autonomy?

They are outside of autonomy

(08-14-2014 11:21 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 10:48 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm apparently in the minority on this, but I didn't get much out of that article. It basically said Fresno was going to fall further behind. Okay...it mentioned nothing about what they might do to stay competitive, or if they would even try. Just not sure what was news about that.

That's what read --- plus didn't know about the first 'rumored' change >>>

[I]...DeRuyter is most concerned about two rumored changes. There is talk that the Big 5 conferences may push to expand the number of football scholarships from 85 to 95 per team. That would steer 120 extra players into the Pacific-12 who might otherwise head to programs like Fresno State’s.

Second, some have speculated that the N.C.A.A. might loosen transfer rules, allowing athletes to move freely from one program to another with no penalty. (Generally, athletes now sit out of competition for a year when transferring.) DeRuyter worries that Fresno State and others would lose their best players after a couple of seasons.

Ive heard zero about any rumored change from 85 to 95. This seems to be hopelessly dated information as the recently passed legislation actually guarantees that the P5 CANNOT autonomously pass changes in the area of scholarship limits (that stays in shared governance). By the way, I don't think they could get 60% of the P5 to vote for scholarship increases anyway as that would result in Alabama taking Techs top 10 recruits and Tech replacing them with recruits that would currently be playing G5 football---I doubt the bottom 60-70% of the P5 would be thrilled with that prospect.

Transfer rules are also NOT in the autonomous area of governance--thought the door was left slightly ajar for there to be a change in that area if reforms are not made over the next 2 years. There will likely be some changes transfer rules, but as ALL D1 schools will be involved in shaping this--so I doubt its going to be devastating to the G5.

(08-14-2014 11:21 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  [I]...DeRuyter is most concerned about two rumored changes. There is talk that the Big 5 conferences may push to expand the number of football scholarships from 85 to 95 per team. That would steer 120 extra players into the Pacific-12 who might otherwise head to programs like Fresno State’s.

Second, some have speculated that the N.C.A.A. might loosen transfer rules, allowing athletes to move freely from one program to another with no penalty.

Neither rule change bothers me. Some of the best teams Memphis ever had was in the 60's when there were no scholarship limits whatsoever and as long as the no-penalty transfers are allowed both ways, it should even out, with the P5 getting the better transfers but the G5 getting MORE of them. Players want to play.

(08-14-2014 11:49 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:41 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:29 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  A change in the transfer rule would be devastating for the G5's.

Yep. That one scares me.

The G5 and FCS schools can outvote the P5 on this issue. Plus SMU has received some great transfers from P5 schools so it can work in reverse too.

Not really as this changes the game. As you would now be losing your best and having to replace them with whomever the P5s were dumping to clear up space. It would almost be like a quasi draft of sorts. Looking at what you gained from the old system would be irrelevant. It would be another tool to further separate the haves from the have nots.

As far as voting, it seems like the P5s are determined to do what it take to get whatever they want.

(08-14-2014 12:27 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:49 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:41 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:29 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  A change in the transfer rule would be devastating for the G5's.

Yep. That one scares me.

The G5 and FCS schools can outvote the P5 on this issue. Plus SMU has received some great transfers from P5 schools so it can work in reverse too.

Not really as this changes the game. As you would now be losing your best and having to replace them with whomever the P5s were dumping to clear up space. It would almost be like a quasi draft of sorts. Looking at what you gained from the old system would be irrelevant. It would be another tool to further separate the haves from the have nots.

As far as voting, it seems like the P5s are determined to do what it take to get whatever they want.

If they adjust transfer rules, I would like to see the transfer rules be linked to the length of scholarship commitment. I'd like to see a system where a student who receives a 1 year renewable scholarship can transfer and not sit our a year---but a student who receives a full 4 year scholarship MUST sit out a year after transfer (and the school can place restrictions on his transfer destination---just like now). The idea is that if the school commits to the student for 4-years, then the student has to commit to the university as well. If the university only wants to commit to the student for a single year---then the student should have the right to essentially do the same thing. With such a system, it will be up the universities to be smart about how they recruit and it will even the playing field for the G5 as they might be more liberal with 4 year scholarships.

(08-14-2014 12:27 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:49 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:41 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:29 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  A change in the transfer rule would be devastating for the G5's.

Yep. That one scares me.

The G5 and FCS schools can outvote the P5 on this issue. Plus SMU has received some great transfers from P5 schools so it can work in reverse too.

Not really as this changes the game. As you would now be losing your best and having to replace them with whomever the P5s were dumping to clear up space. It would almost be like a quasi draft of sorts. Looking at what you gained from the old system would be irrelevant. It would be another tool to further separate the haves from the have nots.

As far as voting, it seems like the P5s are determined to do what it take to get whatever they want.

Except I doubt the bottom of the P5 wants that transfer rule either. Then they'd have to worry that the top would raid them of their best players just as easily as we'd get raided of ours. Just because the top of the P5 wants it doesn't mean those in the P5 that are actually closer to us than the top want it.

(08-14-2014 12:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 12:27 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:49 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:41 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:29 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  A change in the transfer rule would be devastating for the G5's.

Yep. That one scares me.

The G5 and FCS schools can outvote the P5 on this issue. Plus SMU has received some great transfers from P5 schools so it can work in reverse too.

Not really as this changes the game. As you would now be losing your best and having to replace them with whomever the P5s were dumping to clear up space. It would almost be like a quasi draft of sorts. Looking at what you gained from the old system would be irrelevant. It would be another tool to further separate the haves from the have nots.

As far as voting, it seems like the P5s are determined to do what it take to get whatever they want.

If they adjust transfer rules, what I would like to see it the transfer rules be linked to the scholarship commitment. I'd like to see a system where a student who receives a 1 year renewable scholarship can transfer and not sit our a year---but a student who receives a full 4 year scholarship cannot play immediately after transfer (and the school can place restrictions on his transfer---just like now). The idea is that if the school commits to the student for 4-years, then the student has to commit to the university as well. If the university only wants to commit to the student for a single year---then the student should have the right to essentially do the same thing. With such a system, it will be up the universities to be smart about how they recruit and it will even the playing field for the G5 as they might be more liberal with 4 year scholarships.

We will eventually become a D-evelopment League for the G-reedy 5. They will snatch the best players off any team they want. Why should Texas waste a scholarship on a high school QB when it can take Houston’s QB and have him play immediately….

(08-14-2014 12:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 12:27 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:49 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:41 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:29 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  A change in the transfer rule would be devastating for the G5's.

Yep. That one scares me.

The G5 and FCS schools can outvote the P5 on this issue. Plus SMU has received some great transfers from P5 schools so it can work in reverse too.

Not really as this changes the game. As you would now be losing your best and having to replace them with whomever the P5s were dumping to clear up space. It would almost be like a quasi draft of sorts. Looking at what you gained from the old system would be irrelevant. It would be another tool to further separate the haves from the have nots.

As far as voting, it seems like the P5s are determined to do what it take to get whatever they want.

Except I doubt the bottom of the P5 wants that transfer rule either. Then they'd have to worry that the top would raid them of their best players just as easily as we'd get raided of ours. Just because the top of the P5 wants it doesn't mean those in the P5 that are actually closer to us than the top want it.

Good point, but that group is so totally corrupt and out of control (IMO) that the big money players just might get their way or threaten to relegate the small guys. Once the money gets out of control, the leadership does as well.

(08-14-2014 12:53 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 12:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 12:27 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  this changes the game. As you would now be losing your best and having to replace them with whomever the P5s were dumping to clear up space. It would almost be like a quasi draft of sorts.

Except I doubt the bottom of the P5 wants that transfer rule either. Then they'd have to worry that the top would raid them of their best players just as easily as we'd get raided of ours. Just because the top of the P5 wants it doesn't mean those in the P5 that are actually closer to us than the top want it.

Good point, but that group is so totally corrupt and out of control (IMO) that the big money players just might get their way or threaten to relegate the small guys. Once the money gets out of control, the leadership does as well.

We know that the upper-crust P5 programs would do it if they could. So the question really is, who or what will prevent them from doing it? The lower-level P5's? Hmm, I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.

Whether the transfer rules or the number of scholarships are changed, the fact that either is a possibility is sure as hell not news. And that's assuming either gets included in autonomy, which they aren't yet.

In fact, the more I dig into this, the more I htink that article was off base, speculating about stuff that hasn't been put in autonomy yet. He should have at least mentioned that. Hey, not trying to be negative, just observing. At least posting it got us talking, lol.

(08-14-2014 12:49 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 12:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 12:27 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:49 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:41 AM)Chappy Wrote:  Yep. That one scares me.

The G5 and FCS schools can outvote the P5 on this issue. Plus SMU has received some great transfers from P5 schools so it can work in reverse too.

Not really as this changes the game. As you would now be losing your best and having to replace them with whomever the P5s were dumping to clear up space. It would almost be like a quasi draft of sorts. Looking at what you gained from the old system would be irrelevant. It would be another tool to further separate the haves from the have nots.

As far as voting, it seems like the P5s are determined to do what it take to get whatever they want.

If they adjust transfer rules, what I would like to see it the transfer rules be linked to the scholarship commitment. I'd like to see a system where a student who receives a 1 year renewable scholarship can transfer and not sit our a year---but a student who receives a full 4 year scholarship cannot play immediately after transfer (and the school can place restrictions on his transfer---just like now). The idea is that if the school commits to the student for 4-years, then the student has to commit to the university as well. If the university only wants to commit to the student for a single year---then the student should have the right to essentially do the same thing. With such a system, it will be up the universities to be smart about how they recruit and it will even the playing field for the G5 as they might be more liberal with 4 year scholarships.

We will eventually become a D-evelopment League for the G-reedy 5. They will snatch the best players off any team they want. Why should Texas waste a scholarship on a high school QB when it can take Houston’s QB and have him play immediately….

Thats what Im trying to tell you---transfer rules are NOT part of autonomy. Any reformed transfer rules are going to be developed BY ALL OF D1 so that they can obtain a majority of FCS, G5, and non-football votes (as this would apply to basketball as well). Such rules are not going to be created in a way that upsets the competitive balance.

What I proposed is a nice compromise where the student athletes get more relaxed transfer rules and less scholarship security or more scholarship security and less flexible transfer rules depending on what type of scholarship is offered/accepted. This gives both the schools and players the ability to customize their scholarship to match their needs and preferences. I can see some players being unwilling to accept a 4 years scholarship from a G5---and I can see some players choosing a 4-year scholarship from a G5 over a 1-year renewable scholarship from a P5....different strokes for different folks. By the same token, I can see some schools being less willing to offer 4yr deals and some schools being more liberal with the policy.

(08-14-2014 02:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 12:49 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 12:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 12:27 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 11:49 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  The G5 and FCS schools can outvote the P5 on this issue. Plus SMU has received some great transfers from P5 schools so it can work in reverse too.

Not really as this changes the game. As you would now be losing your best and having to replace them with whomever the P5s were dumping to clear up space. It would almost be like a quasi draft of sorts. Looking at what you gained from the old system would be irrelevant. It would be another tool to further separate the haves from the have nots.

As far as voting, it seems like the P5s are determined to do what it take to get whatever they want.

If they adjust transfer rules, what I would like to see it the transfer rules be linked to the scholarship commitment. I'd like to see a system where a student who receives a 1 year renewable scholarship can transfer and not sit our a year---but a student who receives a full 4 year scholarship cannot play immediately after transfer (and the school can place restrictions on his transfer---just like now). The idea is that if the school commits to the student for 4-years, then the student has to commit to the university as well. If the university only wants to commit to the student for a single year---then the student should have the right to essentially do the same thing. With such a system, it will be up the universities to be smart about how they recruit and it will even the playing field for the G5 as they might be more liberal with 4 year scholarships.

We will eventually become a D-evelopment League for the G-reedy 5. They will snatch the best players off any team they want. Why should Texas waste a scholarship on a high school QB when it can take Houston’s QB and have him play immediately….

Thats what Im trying to tell you---transfer rules are NOT part of autonomy. Any reformed transfer rules are going to be developed BY ALL OF D1 so that they can obtain a majority of FCS, G5, and non-football votes (as this would apply to basketball as well). Such rules are not going to be created in a way that upsets the competitive balance.

What I proposed is a nice compromise where the student athletes get more relaxed transfer rules and less scholarship security or more scholarship security and less flexible transfer rules depending on what type of scholarship is offered/accepted. This gives both the schools and players the ability to customize their scholarship to match their needs and preferences. I can see some players being unwilling to accept a 4 years scholarship from a G5---and I can see some players choosing a 4-year scholarship from a G5 over a 1-year renewable scholarship from a P5....different strokes for different folks. By the same token, I can see some schools being less willing to offer 4yr deals and some schools being more liberal with the policy.

.....and they have already said they will split off if they don't get what they want.

The AAC,Mountain West and Cusa sits on its ass not filing immediate federal billion dollar law suits against the top five power conferences and member teams for taking over college sports and making our conference poor relatives. What about going to Congress for anti trust anti monopoly legislation. sad. We sit on our ass.

Who's to say we haven't hired attorneys? The thing hasn't been passed yet just calm down.