https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/ncaa---ant...strictions

(03-09-2016 09:16 AM)NIU1981 Wrote:  https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/ncaa---ant...strictions

He's not wrong...that rule is some BS

Ugh, the NCAA and it's stupid rules.

This "rule" only benefits schools. If a scholarship is not renewed, why would you have to sit out? If you are 5th on the depth chart, why can't you switch to a school that you will play at?

(03-09-2016 11:19 AM)klake87 Wrote:  If a scholarship is not renewed, why would you have to sit out?

Agreed. Seems like NIU said "F you and the horse you want to ride out of town on" and then the Hawkeyes kicked him while he was down. What damn crappy all around experience.

(03-09-2016 11:19 AM)klake87 Wrote:  If you are 5th on the depth chart, why can't you switch to a school that you will play at?

You can if you transfer downward so if this kid really wanted to play he could have at FCS or below, and that has to weigh into this conversation.

I think the best way to re-imagine the transfer rule would be to allow a player to play immediately at another school as long as that school isn't on the future schedule of the school you are transferring from.

It is a crappy system but the alternative is massive free agency every year. They need some smart people to sit down and figure out an alternative.

The NCAA says these rules are needed to help students get acclimated to a new school, but Peter’s case shows just how groundless this argument is.

That is a total BS reason for the rule. That would imply that there is no need to get acclimated with a FCS school, but FBS schools are just too intimidating.

The reason the rule is there, is to keep the big money schools from using small money schools as minor leagues.

Imagine if some MAC schools like NIU, BG, Toledo and WMU, along with some bottom dweller B1G teams like Indiana and Perdue find some gems who were passed over by the P5s schools (which they often do). Then someone like the coach of Notre Dame or Michigan visits each one of them and says, "You can play for us next year, if you transfer." I doubt the players would have any trouble getting acclimated.

What little parity college football has would disappear. That is why the rule is there.

(03-09-2016 12:08 PM)StevenNIU Wrote:  It is a crappy system but the alternative is massive free agency every year. They need some smart people to sit down and figure out an alternative.

True of several other situations but this one is much easier.

A kid who had not played a down of FBS ball AND was paying their own way wanted to transfer to a different FBS school where they would get a scholarship AND the old school had no issues with them transferring.

This is a not a play then transfer to play issue which is the reason for the rule of sitting a year.

(03-09-2016 12:19 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  The NCAA says these rules are needed to help students get acclimated to a new school, but Peter’s case shows just how groundless this argument is.

That is a total BS reason for the rule. That would imply that there is no need to get acclimated with a FCS school, but FBS schools are just too intimidating.

The reason the rule is there, is to keep the big money schools from using small money schools as minor leagues.

Imagine if some MAC schools like NIU, BG, Toledo and WMU, along with some bottom dweller B1G teams like Indiana and Perdue find some gems who were passed over by the P5s schools (which they often do). Then someone like the coach of Notre Dame or Michigan visits each one of them and says, "You can play for us next year, if you transfer." I doubt the players would have any trouble getting acclimated.

What little parity college football has would disappear. That is why the rule is there.

+1

And anyone who thinks this wouldn't happen is naïve.

Does kinda suck, but it sucked for me and my kids who were not athletically gifted due to a bad gene pool.

(03-09-2016 11:19 AM)klake87 Wrote:  This "rule" only benefits schools. If a scholarship is not renewed, why would you have to sit out? If you are 5th on the depth chart, why can't you switch to a school that you will play at?

I concur somewhat. The issue is that NIU took away his scholarship, which is different than a player wanting to transfer to another school while still under scholarship. I can agree with making them sit a year for the latter reason, but definitely not in the circumstances where NIU basically told him to get lost.

This rule limits a students ability to get a paid for education while playing football. If he can do both, why should NCAA have the right to penalize him. Look at Jordan Huff. If he is in the dog house with Carey, he might not play as much but he definitely would see the field at a lot of D1 programs next year if allowed to transfer and play right away.

Wish we would have played him this past year over Ambrose anyways. When a BIG10 team is taking your backup punter especially when your starting punter is brutal that's not a good sign...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-09-2016 12:45 PM)NIU32 Wrote:  Wish we would have played him this past year over Ambrose anyways. When a BIG10 team is taking your backup punter especially when your starting punter is brutal that's not a good sign...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats what I was thinking. We had a guy that has an offer from Iowa looking to transfer b/c of playing time and our punter has a hard time getting it 20 yards.

(03-09-2016 12:48 PM)HuskiePride12 Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 12:45 PM)NIU32 Wrote:  Wish we would have played him this past year over Ambrose anyways. When a BIG10 team is taking your backup punter especially when your starting punter is brutal that's not a good sign...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats what I was thinking. We had a guy that has an offer from Iowa looking to transfer b/c of playing time and our punter has a hard time getting it 20 yards.

Hell, our punter has a hard time catching the snap. Not trying to be critical of the kid, but this is D1...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ambrose was a JUCO All American who looked to me like he got the yips last year. It happens. I bet he's a lot better this year.

Punters aren't people

(03-09-2016 12:56 PM)HuskieRak Wrote:  Punters aren't people

Kickers are not football players.

A punter, hmmmmmm its not like we could use one of those at the current time.

(03-09-2016 12:28 PM)thxjoenovak Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 12:19 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  The NCAA says these rules are needed to help students get acclimated to a new school, but Peter’s case shows just how groundless this argument is.

That is a total BS reason for the rule. That would imply that there is no need to get acclimated with a FCS school, but FBS schools are just too intimidating.

The reason the rule is there, is to keep the big money schools from using small money schools as minor leagues.

Imagine if some MAC schools like NIU, BG, Toledo and WMU, along with some bottom dweller B1G teams like Indiana and Perdue find some gems who were passed over by the P5s schools (which they often do). Then someone like the coach of Notre Dame or Michigan visits each one of them and says, "You can play for us next year, if you transfer." I doubt the players would have any trouble getting acclimated.

What little parity college football has would disappear. That is why the rule is there.

+1

And anyone who thinks this wouldn't happen is naïve.

Does kinda suck, but it sucked for me and my kids who were not athletically gifted due to a bad gene pool.

heck it already happens in basketball. Abdel Nader *cough*

(03-09-2016 12:27 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 12:08 PM)StevenNIU Wrote:  It is a crappy system but the alternative is massive free agency every year. They need some smart people to sit down and figure out an alternative.

True of several other situations but this one is much easier.

A kid who had not played a down of FBS ball AND was paying their own way wanted to transfer to a different FBS school where they would get a scholarship AND the old school had no issues with them transferring.

This is a not a play then transfer to play issue which is the reason for the rule of sitting a year.

Good point, I did not consider the entire situation.