(02-02-2020 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 01:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 01:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 05:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  As long as a school can only commit to a player for a year via a one year and can evaluate whether they want to renew his schollie every year, the player should be able to do the same.

Kind of a straw man argument. The school cannot pull a scholarship during the year. The player can transfer anywhere they want---they just cant play football for a the first year there. Both sides have restrictions.

I worded my statement so poorly I'm surprised anyone understood it, LOL, but several seemed to.

Anyway, I don't see equal restrictions. Yes, the school has to commit a scholarship for a full year, but so what? It's not like the typical school wants to pull it after 4 months or 8 months or whatever so that's basically not a restriction that rubs any school the wrong way.

But a player having to sit out a year is potentially a very big deal to them, huge in terms of their progression. It has created a situation where in the vast majority of the cases, schools can easily get rid of players they don't want, but players have a much harder time getting rid of a school they don't want. So I'm comfortable with my point, LOL, and the details you mention about 85 schollies and the like can be worked out.

I dont see it as being different at all. The school has to pay for a scholarship even if a player turns out to be a bust. Heck, players redshirt and transfer all the time---having never played one snap for the school. When it comes to the ability to transfer, both sides have skin in the game.

That said, even if we assume you are 100% right and Im 100% wrong---my point is really that changing the rule will have a ton of unintended consequences that need to be carefully offset. For instance, I think they need to look at adjusting the 25 scholarship cap in a way that allows it to fluctuate to reflect the number of transfers leaving a program. Otherwise, programs can end up being gutted without having a way to ever really recover that depth.

To me it seems obvious that the one-year thing is very tilted towards the schools, the cost to schools of keeping someone one year they find out they don't want is trivial compared to the cost to the athlete of missing a year of play, but to your second point, I agree there will be consequences, which I think smart people can figure out in a fair way that maintains the integrity of the 25 scholarship cap or something close to it. And if not, I think the principle of being able to play is more important than the cap, the "25" is not sacrosanct.

Already, the "transfer portal" thing is having an impact in that area too. Schools IMO should just have to adjust to the consequences, etc. Athletic admins often make hundreds of thousands or even more a year so they are being paid handsomely to manage these kinds of problems.

College hoops is going to become like Major League Baseball where there is so much turnover nobody will know who plays where!

(02-03-2020 10:40 AM)esayem Wrote:  College hoops is going to become like Major League Baseball where there is so much turnover nobody will know who plays where!

One and done does that at schools like Kentucky and Duke.

They do ok with the constant rebuilding. But I don't think its good long term for their fan bases.

(02-02-2020 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That said, even if we assume you are 100% right and Im 100% wrong---my point is really that changing the rule will have a ton of unintended consequences that need to be carefully offset. For instance, I think they need to look at adjusting the 25 scholarship cap in a way that allows it to fluctuate to reflect the number of transfers leaving a program. Otherwise, programs can end up being gutted without having a way to ever really recover that depth.

That would allow coaches to increase their annual scholarship limit by taking away the scholarships of their least-liked players. You have 11 defensive backs on scholarship, but you see players you can recruit that you like more, so you force 5 of your current DBs to either quit football or transfer to FCS teams, and then you can offer 5 extra scholarships in the next recruiting class?

(02-03-2020 11:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 10:40 AM)esayem Wrote:  College hoops is going to become like Major League Baseball where there is so much turnover nobody will know who plays where!

One and done does that at schools like Kentucky and Duke.

They do ok with the constant rebuilding. But I don't think its good long term for their fan bases.

That’s true. I’m just thinking about the smaller programs which haven’t experienced that.

(02-03-2020 12:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That said, even if we assume you are 100% right and Im 100% wrong---my point is really that changing the rule will have a ton of unintended consequences that need to be carefully offset. For instance, I think they need to look at adjusting the 25 scholarship cap in a way that allows it to fluctuate to reflect the number of transfers leaving a program. Otherwise, programs can end up being gutted without having a way to ever really recover that depth.

That would allow coaches to increase their annual scholarship limit by taking away the scholarships of their least-liked players. You have 11 defensive backs on scholarship, but you see players you can recruit that you like more, so you force 5 of your current DBs to either quit football or transfer to FCS teams, and then you can offer 5 extra scholarships in the next recruiting class?

More unintended consequences. That said---Im pretty sure that happens now. However, if a coach can see a player will never make the field---its probably not the worst thing for either party if the kid moves to somewhere he can break into the rotation.

I'm saddened that instead of guaranteed rides for kids, which never cemented itself at this level, and all of the posturing about it needing review and whatnot, this complete abandonment comes along, and it's got the votes.

And a shift from "this is what we should be doing" to "this is what the kids will want."

Things have gotten so out of control, and for the life of me, I just can't understand why schools can't just say when someone is on the clock at an institution and when they're not. "I want to keep playing" and "but I haven't exhausted my eligibility" should be one of the last things on these schools' minds. Commit to them, get them to a degree, and be done. If they're just there to toss a football or basketball around, schools should just pass altogether on it. Like, why isn't the NCAA laying this on the front porches of the NFL and NBA and saying "we can help a lot of these kids but not all of them. What are you going to with the rest?"

Schools should be in the business of education. Not sports.

(02-03-2020 12:40 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 11:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 10:40 AM)esayem Wrote:  College hoops is going to become like Major League Baseball where there is so much turnover nobody will know who plays where!

One and done does that at schools like Kentucky and Duke.

They do ok with the constant rebuilding. But I don't think its good long term for their fan bases.

That’s true. I’m just thinking about the smaller programs which haven’t experienced that.

This.

Duke and Kentucky do ok with high roster turnover because they win. They don't rebuild; they reload.

Constant rebuilding at a Sun Belt or MAC school means a lot of sub-.500 seasons, with no end in sight. Today, fans of those schools at least have the opportunity to get familiar with the good players over 4 years. Take that familiarity away and the fanbases will lose interest completely.

(02-03-2020 12:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 12:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That said, even if we assume you are 100% right and Im 100% wrong---my point is really that changing the rule will have a ton of unintended consequences that need to be carefully offset. For instance, I think they need to look at adjusting the 25 scholarship cap in a way that allows it to fluctuate to reflect the number of transfers leaving a program. Otherwise, programs can end up being gutted without having a way to ever really recover that depth.

That would allow coaches to increase their annual scholarship limit by taking away the scholarships of their least-liked players. You have 11 defensive backs on scholarship, but you see players you can recruit that you like more, so you force 5 of your current DBs to either quit football or transfer to FCS teams, and then you can offer 5 extra scholarships in the next recruiting class?

More unintended consequences. That said---Im pretty sure that happens now. However, if a coach can see a player will never make the field---its probably not the worst thing for either party if the kid moves to somewhere he can break into the rotation.

It does happen now -- but there's no reason to further reward coaches for doing it by increasing their annual scholarship limit every time they take away a player's scholarship.

(02-03-2020 02:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 12:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 12:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That said, even if we assume you are 100% right and Im 100% wrong---my point is really that changing the rule will have a ton of unintended consequences that need to be carefully offset. For instance, I think they need to look at adjusting the 25 scholarship cap in a way that allows it to fluctuate to reflect the number of transfers leaving a program. Otherwise, programs can end up being gutted without having a way to ever really recover that depth.

That would allow coaches to increase their annual scholarship limit by taking away the scholarships of their least-liked players. You have 11 defensive backs on scholarship, but you see players you can recruit that you like more, so you force 5 of your current DBs to either quit football or transfer to FCS teams, and then you can offer 5 extra scholarships in the next recruiting class?

More unintended consequences. That said---Im pretty sure that happens now. However, if a coach can see a player will never make the field---its probably not the worst thing for either party if the kid moves to somewhere he can break into the rotation.

It does happen now -- but there's no reason to further reward coaches for doing it by increasing their annual scholarship limit every time they take away a player's scholarship.

None the less, its inevitable that it will be the price that will be paid for free transfer. Otherwise, schools will have little chance of ever recovering from the double whammy of having a popular coach poached and then suffering a mass exodus of players as they transfer (since the guy that recruited them is gone). You simply cant have free transfer without giving the schools a way to replenish their numbers.

Let me put it in a way that is player friendly---your basically "stranding" scholarships. A school can be well below the 85 limit, but cant use those scholarships on transfers due to the 25 player per year limit. If your interested in the players wellfare---then why be against letting players claim those stranded scholarships?

(02-03-2020 03:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 02:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 12:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 12:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That said, even if we assume you are 100% right and Im 100% wrong---my point is really that changing the rule will have a ton of unintended consequences that need to be carefully offset. For instance, I think they need to look at adjusting the 25 scholarship cap in a way that allows it to fluctuate to reflect the number of transfers leaving a program. Otherwise, programs can end up being gutted without having a way to ever really recover that depth.

That would allow coaches to increase their annual scholarship limit by taking away the scholarships of their least-liked players. You have 11 defensive backs on scholarship, but you see players you can recruit that you like more, so you force 5 of your current DBs to either quit football or transfer to FCS teams, and then you can offer 5 extra scholarships in the next recruiting class?

More unintended consequences. That said---Im pretty sure that happens now. However, if a coach can see a player will never make the field---its probably not the worst thing for either party if the kid moves to somewhere he can break into the rotation.

It does happen now -- but there's no reason to further reward coaches for doing it by increasing their annual scholarship limit every time they take away a player's scholarship.

None the less, its inevitable that it will be the price that will be paid for free transfer. Otherwise, schools will have little chance of ever recovering from the double whammy of having a popular coach poached and then suffering a mass exodus of players as they transfer (since the guy that recruited them is gone). You simply cant have free transfer without giving the schools a way to replenish their numbers.

It's all a downstream solution to an upstream problem. So, why can't the fix be addressed further up the line?

(02-03-2020 02:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 12:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 12:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That said, even if we assume you are 100% right and Im 100% wrong---my point is really that changing the rule will have a ton of unintended consequences that need to be carefully offset. For instance, I think they need to look at adjusting the 25 scholarship cap in a way that allows it to fluctuate to reflect the number of transfers leaving a program. Otherwise, programs can end up being gutted without having a way to ever really recover that depth.

That would allow coaches to increase their annual scholarship limit by taking away the scholarships of their least-liked players. You have 11 defensive backs on scholarship, but you see players you can recruit that you like more, so you force 5 of your current DBs to either quit football or transfer to FCS teams, and then you can offer 5 extra scholarships in the next recruiting class?

More unintended consequences. That said---Im pretty sure that happens now. However, if a coach can see a player will never make the field---its probably not the worst thing for either party if the kid moves to somewhere he can break into the rotation.

It does happen now -- but there's no reason to further reward coaches for doing it by increasing their annual scholarship limit every time they take away a player's scholarship.

I agree. There are lots of ways to force someone out without actually revoking the scholarship. Reality is that these schools could do just fine with 60 scholarships. They just wouldn't be as consistent as injuries and players not panning out would impact them more. So what? 85 is not some magic number. NFL got by with 40 players and a 7 man practice squad for decades.

(02-03-2020 03:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 02:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 12:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 12:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That said, even if we assume you are 100% right and Im 100% wrong---my point is really that changing the rule will have a ton of unintended consequences that need to be carefully offset. For instance, I think they need to look at adjusting the 25 scholarship cap in a way that allows it to fluctuate to reflect the number of transfers leaving a program. Otherwise, programs can end up being gutted without having a way to ever really recover that depth.

That would allow coaches to increase their annual scholarship limit by taking away the scholarships of their least-liked players. You have 11 defensive backs on scholarship, but you see players you can recruit that you like more, so you force 5 of your current DBs to either quit football or transfer to FCS teams, and then you can offer 5 extra scholarships in the next recruiting class?

More unintended consequences. That said---Im pretty sure that happens now. However, if a coach can see a player will never make the field---its probably not the worst thing for either party if the kid moves to somewhere he can break into the rotation.

It does happen now -- but there's no reason to further reward coaches for doing it by increasing their annual scholarship limit every time they take away a player's scholarship.

None the less, its inevitable that it will be the price that will be paid for free transfer. Otherwise, schools will have little chance of ever recovering from the double whammy of having a popular coach poached and then suffering a mass exodus of players as they transfer (since the guy that recruited them is gone). You simply cant have free transfer without giving the schools a way to replenish their numbers.

Let me put it in a way that is player friendly---your basically "stranding" scholarships. A school can be well below the 85 limit, but cant use those scholarships on transfers due to the 25 player per year limit. If your interested in the players wellfare---then why be against letting players claim those stranded scholarships?

You could give scholarships to non scholarship walk-ons. There are lots of kickers on teams with no scholarships. John Mackovic had a philosophy (of course he paid for it) of not giving scholarships to punters.

(02-03-2020 04:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 02:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 12:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 12:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-02-2020 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That said, even if we assume you are 100% right and Im 100% wrong---my point is really that changing the rule will have a ton of unintended consequences that need to be carefully offset. For instance, I think they need to look at adjusting the 25 scholarship cap in a way that allows it to fluctuate to reflect the number of transfers leaving a program. Otherwise, programs can end up being gutted without having a way to ever really recover that depth.

That would allow coaches to increase their annual scholarship limit by taking away the scholarships of their least-liked players. You have 11 defensive backs on scholarship, but you see players you can recruit that you like more, so you force 5 of your current DBs to either quit football or transfer to FCS teams, and then you can offer 5 extra scholarships in the next recruiting class?

More unintended consequences. That said---Im pretty sure that happens now. However, if a coach can see a player will never make the field---its probably not the worst thing for either party if the kid moves to somewhere he can break into the rotation.

It does happen now -- but there's no reason to further reward coaches for doing it by increasing their annual scholarship limit every time they take away a player's scholarship.

I agree. There are lots of ways to force someone out without actually revoking the scholarship. Reality is that these schools could do just fine with 60 scholarships. They just wouldn't be as consistent as injuries and players not panning out would impact them more. So what? 85 is not some magic number. NFL got by with 40 players and a 7 man practice squad for decades.

Not sure what your point is. Sure, 85 isnt a magic number---most people are below 85 most of the time---but not much. That said, 85 vs 63 makes a difference. Everyone you recruit doesnt pan out. Thats 22 more misses you can have and still have 63 quality contributing players.

Most schools struggle to stay close to 85 due to normal attrition (injury, wash outs, transfer, grade issues, etc). If you have a coaching change under a free transfer system, a school could literally be gutted in a way its almost impossible to recover from. You have to have some sort of mechanism that allows schools to rebuild their numbers in a free transfer environment.

(02-03-2020 04:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 03:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 02:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 12:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 12:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  That would allow coaches to increase their annual scholarship limit by taking away the scholarships of their least-liked players. You have 11 defensive backs on scholarship, but you see players you can recruit that you like more, so you force 5 of your current DBs to either quit football or transfer to FCS teams, and then you can offer 5 extra scholarships in the next recruiting class?

More unintended consequences. That said---Im pretty sure that happens now. However, if a coach can see a player will never make the field---its probably not the worst thing for either party if the kid moves to somewhere he can break into the rotation.

It does happen now -- but there's no reason to further reward coaches for doing it by increasing their annual scholarship limit every time they take away a player's scholarship.

None the less, its inevitable that it will be the price that will be paid for free transfer. Otherwise, schools will have little chance of ever recovering from the double whammy of having a popular coach poached and then suffering a mass exodus of players as they transfer (since the guy that recruited them is gone). You simply cant have free transfer without giving the schools a way to replenish their numbers.

Let me put it in a way that is player friendly---your basically "stranding" scholarships. A school can be well below the 85 limit, but cant use those scholarships on transfers due to the 25 player per year limit. If your interested in the players wellfare---then why be against letting players claim those stranded scholarships?

You could give scholarships to non scholarship walk-ons. There are lots of kickers on teams with no scholarships. John Mackovic had a philosophy (of course he paid for it) of not giving scholarships to punters.

Those players are already there. The issue is numbers. Giving scholarships to players that are already there does nothing to rebuild your numbers after an exodus.

Go back to partials. But, strictly govern them this time. Want to hoard underclassmen? Don't give them a full counter. And this is where the school can also help make a decision where a kid has "the fit" for the school. Athletics give up a piece, school the other. You're either fully one or the other after a period of time on both the field and the classroom.

Or, adopt D3 and merit aid kids. Let the schools take the direct hit.

I read today that this one-time transfer rule already exists for most NCAA sports, the only athletes who have to sit out a year are football, men's and women's hoops, baseball, and ice hockey.

To me, there's zero justification for having a different rule for athletes in those five sports, so I am convinced more than ever that the B1G proposal is correct.

(02-03-2020 07:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I read today that this one-time transfer rule already exists for most NCAA sports, the only athletes who have to sit out a year are football, men's and women's hoops, baseball, and ice hockey.

To me, there's zero justification for having a different rule for athletes in those five sports, so I am convinced more than ever that the B1G proposal is correct.

It would be interesting to know the transfer numbers of athletes in those non-revenue sports (and non-athletes on scholarships for that matter). The rule was probably implemented to prevent the recruiting of current college athletes, because that will surely be the outcome of this.

The data are here. Not sure what conclusions you could draw from it. M/W basketball both already have very high rates of transfers. Football and Ice Hockey are around the median and baseball is very low.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/researc...Slides.pdf

(02-04-2020 08:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 07:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I read today that this one-time transfer rule already exists for most NCAA sports, the only athletes who have to sit out a year are football, men's and women's hoops, baseball, and ice hockey.

To me, there's zero justification for having a different rule for athletes in those five sports, so I am convinced more than ever that the B1G proposal is correct.

It would be interesting to know the transfer numbers of athletes in those non-revenue sports (and non-athletes on scholarships for that matter). The rule was probably implemented to prevent the recruiting of current college athletes, because that will surely be the outcome of this.

To me, there is no good reason for different rules for athletes in different sports. The rule is just a way for the schools to keep "their" athletes in those sports, make it hard for them to leave.