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

Tha will kill mid majors, especially in basketball. The big schools poach the miss a lot as is, this will make it a lot worse.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This could result in more players being willing to start out at a G5 school in order to get the playing time, or to learn under a coach who is known for teaching fundamentals.

Of course, some of those players will jump to a big-time school after a year or two (though some will probably stay). So it becomes a kind of one-and-done situation where they are leaving for P5 schools instead of the pros.

Unless they stay at a school like Boise State that wins. It is no guarantee that they will become a starter at a P5 school if they are like 4th or 5th in line. At least you still be a starter at QB at the G5 schools.

Could work the other way too. What if a 2nd string QB at a P5 isn't getting any play time. He could say screw it an just jump to a G5 as a 1st stringer.

(09-06-2017 06:34 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  This could result in more players being willing to start out at a G5 school in order to get the playing time, or to learn under a coach who is known for teaching fundamentals.

Of course, some of those players will jump to a big-time school after a year or two (though some will probably stay). So it becomes a kind of one-and-done situation where they are leaving for P5 schools instead of the pros.

It will definitely result in P5 schools using the G5 as a farm system of sorts. For instance, if (fill in the blank P5 school) has a player has a guy leave early for the draft, get significantly injured, have some offf the field issue that results in suspension/expulsion etc. it would be extremely easy for them to pluck right from the cream of the crop in the G5 to fill in that gap.

(09-06-2017 06:51 AM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  Could work the other way too. What if a 2nd string QB at a P5 isn't getting any play time. He could say screw it an just jump to a G5 as a 1st stringer.

Possibly, but likely it would be the third string guy instead of the backup That second stringer knows he is just a concussion or one bad game away from take snaps away from the #1 guy.

One other thing, in addition to the G5 the lower tiered P5 schools should be wary of this rule as well. If for example, an under the radar guy tears it up at a Washington State, Kansas, Rutgers, etc. he could easily be poached by a higher tiered P5 school.

Remove the linkage between the sports teams and the academic institutions and reclassify them as professional teams. Surely this squashes any naive belief that the revenue sports are anything but about school pride and a celebration of amateurism?

The Renaissance man is dead. Long live the specialists!

(09-06-2017 12:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  http://247sports.com/Article/Sources-Maj...-107001121

Definitely will hurt the entire down-stream pecking order: Top P5 will poach from lower P5, lower P5 will poach from upper G5, and down the line.

(09-06-2017 06:51 AM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  Could work the other way too. What if a 2nd string QB at a P5 isn't getting any play time. He could say screw it an just jump to a G5 as a 1st stringer.

Yes, but 9 times out of 10, it will be a better player going from the G5 to the P5, and a worse player going from the P5 to the G5.

E.g., in your scenario, if that P5 second-stringer is any good at all, he's going to another P5, not a G5.

From my interpretation of the new rule, it sounds like when a student-athlete transfers for the first time, there will be no sit-out period (assuming he/she is qualified academically). However, if that student-athlete transfers a second time, then he/she must sit out a full year. It does not add on to the eligibility of a student-athlete.

Also, this may also mean a mutual agreement between the student-athlete and school during the LOI process where both sides can list a small number of schools that the player cannot attend if a transfer occurs (i.e. Florida-Florida State, Texas-Texas A&M, within conference, etc.).

Good. With the existing restraints on trade with players receiving no compensation and having to sign a non-negotiable LOI without the assistance of an agent, the least that the NCAA can do is to allow them the freedom of movement that other "normal" students have (much less the coaches that can leave for greener pastures whenever they want). A lot of these threads end up focusing on the impact on programs, but the students are the ones that had little to no negotiating power. The parameters seem reasonable with the GPA requirement and the 1-year sitout rule still applying to someone transferring a second time (to clamp down on the potential "serial" transfers). College sports are full of hypocrisies, but students being restricted to transfer while the coaches that recruited them could move freely for better jobs has always been one of the most glaring examples of college sports hypocrisy of them all.

On a sport level, do not like the change, but on moral cannot argue against. They call them student atheletes and do not allow them recieve outside compensation. If they are going to treat them as students in that way, then they should be able to transfer and participate in the extra ciricular activity same as if a good actor left for another school and joined a new theater club.

Now on a sports level, I do not like it. You are setting things up for players to be recruited from their existing schools which I do not care for. This would start small, but might snowball into a very different feeling college football.

(09-06-2017 08:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Good. With the existing restraints on trade with players receiving no compensation and having to sign a non-negotiable LOI without the assistance of an agent, the least that the NCAA can do is to allow them the freedom of movement that other "normal" students have (much less the coaches that can leave for greener pastures whenever they want). A lot of these threads end up focusing on the impact on programs, but the students are the ones that had little to no negotiating power. The parameters seem reasonable with the GPA requirement and the 1-year sitout rule still applying to someone transferring a second time (to clamp down on the potential "serial" transfers). College sports are full of hypocrisies, but students being restricted to transfer while the coaches that recruited them could move freely for better jobs has always been one of the most glaring examples of college sports hypocrisy of them all.

Wouldn't a better compromise be allowing instant transfers to student-athletes of programs whose coach leaves? Or if a program is put on probation for past sins, allowing those players a one-time exception to transfer freely?

Or what about providing guaranteed four-year scholarships (only a few programs, to my knowledge provide this)? That would make it acceptable to sitting out a year, if one decides to transfer, no?

I just think there are better compromises than allowing unlimited transfer capabilities. Ever offseason would be free agency and cause more uncertainty (for players and programs than ever before).

I always thought the rule that does not allow players to transfer and start is absolute BS. I mean look at the running backs on the USC roster.

Ronald Jones II - 4 star (2015) #1 (Starter)
Aca'Cedric Ware - 4 star (2015)
Dominic Davis - 4 star (2015)
Vavae Malepeai - 4 star (2016) #3 (Backup)
Stephen Carr - 4 star (2017) #2 (Starter)

Davis and Ware are both true 4 star Juniors who have a good amount of playing time over their three years playing. I think it's unfair that guys like these don't have the option to look somewhere else their senior year. They could be starting at a lot of schools but they are sitting on the bench and getting trash time carries.

(09-06-2017 08:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Good. With the existing restraints on trade with players receiving no compensation and having to sign a non-negotiable LOI without the assistance of an agent, the least that the NCAA can do is to allow them the freedom of movement that other "normal" students have (much less the coaches that can leave for greener pastures whenever they want). A lot of these threads end up focusing on the impact on programs, but the students are the ones that had little to no negotiating power. The parameters seem reasonable with the GPA requirement and the 1-year sitout rule still applying to someone transferring a second time (to clamp down on the potential "serial" transfers). College sports are full of hypocrisies, but students being restricted to transfer while the coaches that recruited them could move freely for better jobs has always been one of the most glaring examples of college sports hypocrisy of them all.

They're amateurs...

This is going to be awesome. Free agency for college football!

There could and will be some athletes that choose to jump ship but then there are others who, a) have school pride wherever they land, b) end up loving where they are at, c) like the idea of being a big fish in a small pond, d) have a grudge against the bigger schools for not seeing their potential, etc. There are plenty of reasons why a player might not choose to leave if offered an opportunity.

That all being said, this does seem to lend itself towards a split between the power schools and non-power schools. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

It would wash on impact

But it won't be good for the academics of the players dealing with transfer and credit.

(09-06-2017 08:55 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-06-2017 08:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Good. With the existing restraints on trade with players receiving no compensation and having to sign a non-negotiable LOI without the assistance of an agent, the least that the NCAA can do is to allow them the freedom of movement that other "normal" students have (much less the coaches that can leave for greener pastures whenever they want). A lot of these threads end up focusing on the impact on programs, but the students are the ones that had little to no negotiating power. The parameters seem reasonable with the GPA requirement and the 1-year sitout rule still applying to someone transferring a second time (to clamp down on the potential "serial" transfers). College sports are full of hypocrisies, but students being restricted to transfer while the coaches that recruited them could move freely for better jobs has always been one of the most glaring examples of college sports hypocrisy of them all.

Wouldn't a better compromise be allowing instant transfers to student-athletes of programs whose coach leaves? Or if a program is put on probation for past sins, allowing those players a one-time exception to transfer freely?

Or what about providing guaranteed four-year scholarships (only a few programs, to my knowledge provide this)? That would make it acceptable to sitting out a year, if one decides to transfer, no?

I just think there are better compromises than allowing unlimited transfer capabilities. Ever offseason would be free agency and cause more uncertainty (for players and programs than ever before).

Our current model is 100% focused on protecting the schools and not the kids. When I played sports in college I had to work 4x as hard as a normal student. Before athletes start playing you have to go through a nerve wrecking process with the NCAA clearinghouse. Then I'm not sure some of you realize the requirements that are placed on athletes to remain eligible. Like by junior year you must have completed (x) amount of the courses in your major.

And this is all while doing mandatory study halls, mandatory team meetings, mandatory meals, practice, mandatory events, and weight training that was unofficially mandatory on your own free time. I would wake up at 6:30am and get back to my dorm around 9pm most days and never have time to have any fun. While my (normal) student roommate got to get drunk of his behind, be late to his classes, and do whatever he wanted to do.

And God forbid the athletic department catch you wearing team clothing outside campus......