There's talk of changing NCAA transfer rules to allowing transfers without sitting out a year.

http://usc.247sports.com/Article/Sources...-107001121

If this passes - and I don't think it will - it's a huge mistake IMO.

(09-06-2017 06:32 PM)PreacherPurl Wrote:  If this passes - and I don't think it will - it's a huge mistake IMO.

I totally agree with you.

(09-06-2017 04:02 PM)prosec34 Wrote:  There's talk of changing NCAA transfer rules to allowing transfers without sitting out a year.

http://usc.247sports.com/Article/Sources...-107001121

I'm good with this. Making players sit out a year after they move doesn't change their decision to transfer. There might be more upperclassmen movement, but players who redshirted early already do that as grad students.

Right up until a Power 5 school comes in and poaches a kid that would've taken your program to the big dance. The beauty of being a mid-major fan is watching that hidden gem spend their entire career playing for your program. I'm afraid it'll turn the mid major programs into junior colleges.

(09-07-2017 09:24 AM)squeak Wrote:  Right up until a Power 5 school comes in and poaches a kid that would've taken your program to the big dance. The beauty of being a mid-major fan is watching that hidden gem spend their entire career playing for your program. I'm afraid it'll turn the mid major programs into junior colleges.

BINGO, we have a winner folks!

I could see mid majors getting more players from majors than vice-versa, but yeah, I could also see players like Mister, Dennis, and Talford getting the attention they missed as high schoolers.

Like prosec said, the flip side is, you could also see a major college player who's not getting much playing time come here, and really build a powerhouse team at a mid-major. Overall, I agree and don't like this proposed change, but someone like Forbes could use it to their benefit.

(09-07-2017 09:24 AM)squeak Wrote:  Right up until a Power 5 school comes in and poaches a kid that would've taken your program to the big dance.

I understand what you're saying, and if this were happening on its own, you might have a point. But this is part of a broader overhaul that would also include additional anti-tampering measures, particularly for third parties, which is how power schools "poach" players in the sense you're talking about. We won't see these changes made in a vacuum; they will be part of a completely new system with little in common with what is in place now, so forecasting gloom and doom for mid-majors is premature, IMO.

NCAA enforcement is kind of a joke in itself, so I wouldn't expect measures preventing ''player poaching'' to take root.

I've seen nothing from the NCAA in the last ten years that helped FCS schools. They have bent over backwards to give the Power 5 whatever they wanted.

This change would just bring more misery to FCS schools.

(09-08-2017 05:21 PM)Buc76 Wrote:  I've seen nothing from the NCAA in the last ten years that helped FCS schools. They have bent over backwards to give the Power 5 whatever they wanted.

This change would just bring more misery to FCS schools.

The biggest fear of non-Power Five (Plus a Few) Division I basketball schools, including, of course, those that play football, is a break up of the NCAA Division I basketball tourney. Maintaining the eligibility for a chance at the Big Dance, certainly maintaining the current conference autos, is crucial, obviously. So, the big boys are holding that card and play it whenever it benefits them. If they calculate that this transfer change will benefit them and they support it, then the other DI schools will have little choice but to go along.

I am all for trying to reduce the number of transfers by almost any means possible. This does the complete opposite.

(09-08-2017 10:16 PM)etsubuc Wrote:  I am all for trying to reduce the number of transfers by almost any means possible. This does the complete opposite.

If academics matter at all anymore, seems it would be best to stay put and on track for a degree -- which could be more difficult to accomplish as eligibility expires if one is transferring around unless they're going to extend eligibility to five years.