https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/13/nc...ligibility

Quote: Under the proposal developed by the NCAA Working Group on Transfers, athletes are afforded a one-time transfer during their athletic careers without suffering the penalty of sitting out a season, reversing a policy from the 1960s. Fall and winter sport athletes would have to notify their schools of a transfer by May 1, with an exception extending the date to July 1 for an end-of-the-year head coaching change or the non-renewal of scholarships.

I will miss the days of following a player develop for 4 years.

(10-13-2020 09:08 AM)UABGrad Wrote:  https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/13/nc...ligibility

Quote: Under the proposal developed by the NCAA Working Group on Transfers, athletes are afforded a one-time transfer during their athletic careers without suffering the penalty of sitting out a season, reversing a policy from the 1960s. Fall and winter sport athletes would have to notify their schools of a transfer by May 1, with an exception extending the date to July 1 for an end-of-the-year head coaching change or the non-renewal of scholarships.

I will miss the days of following a player develop for 4 years.

I like it, and I think G5 might benefit. A 3-star guy goes to Ole Miss because he thinks he will be starting in the SEC, quickly realizes that he's buried on the depth chart? He can now transfer to Memphis or UAB seemlessly without the onerous burden of sitting out a year, he can suit up immediately.

The whole "transfer portal" concept is good for the G5, as it reduces the ability of the P5 to hoard and warehouse talent. IMO, that's a reason we've already seen more G5 success vs P5, and this will help more.

(10-13-2020 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 09:08 AM)UABGrad Wrote:  https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/13/nc...ligibility

Quote: Under the proposal developed by the NCAA Working Group on Transfers, athletes are afforded a one-time transfer during their athletic careers without suffering the penalty of sitting out a season, reversing a policy from the 1960s. Fall and winter sport athletes would have to notify their schools of a transfer by May 1, with an exception extending the date to July 1 for an end-of-the-year head coaching change or the non-renewal of scholarships.

I will miss the days of following a player develop for 4 years.

I like it, and I think G5 might benefit. A 3-star guy goes to Ole Miss because he thinks he will be starting in the SEC, quickly realizes that he's buried on the depth chart? He can now transfer to Memphis or UAB seemlessly without the onerous burden of sitting out a year, he can suit up immediately.

The whole "transfer portal" concept is good for the G5, as it reduces the ability of the P5 to hoard and warehouse talent. IMO, that's a reason we've already seen more G5 success vs P5, and this will help more.

bull****. a 3 star guy goes to Memphis and blows up into a superstar by his sophomore season. Now he gets to transfer to a P5 school and doesn't have to sit out a year. That helps the P5 out 1000000000% more than the G5 and you damn well know it.

******* free agency in college sports..

(10-13-2020 09:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 09:08 AM)UABGrad Wrote:  https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/13/nc...ligibility

Quote: Under the proposal developed by the NCAA Working Group on Transfers, athletes are afforded a one-time transfer during their athletic careers without suffering the penalty of sitting out a season, reversing a policy from the 1960s. Fall and winter sport athletes would have to notify their schools of a transfer by May 1, with an exception extending the date to July 1 for an end-of-the-year head coaching change or the non-renewal of scholarships.

I will miss the days of following a player develop for 4 years.

I like it, and I think G5 might benefit. A 3-star guy goes to Ole Miss because he thinks he will be starting in the SEC, quickly realizes that he's buried on the depth chart? He can now transfer to Memphis or UAB seemlessly without the onerous burden of sitting out a year, he can suit up immediately.

The whole "transfer portal" concept is good for the G5, as it reduces the ability of the P5 to hoard and warehouse talent. IMO, that's a reason we've already seen more G5 success vs P5, and this will help more.

bull****. a 3 star guy goes to Memphis and blows up into a superstar by his sophomore season. Now he gets to transfer to a P5 school and doesn't have to sit out a year. That helps the P5 out 1000000000% more than the G5 and you damn well know it.

That *can* happen, for sure. But I think that the cases I describe are much more likely to happen. For every 3-star guy who "blows up at Memphis" there are probably three or four 3-star guys who go to an Ole Miss or Auburn or Florida and end up disappointed with their playing time.

Plus, if you blow up at Memphis, you're now on every scout's radar so exposure isn't really an issue. You transfer to an SEC team you might not get as much playing time, nor shine as brightly versus the competition, which could hurt your draft stock.

School x has developed a 2 or 3 star qb and as a sophomore he is doing a very good job. He transfers on May 1st and school x is now relying on luck to find a replacement in the transfer portal. Sounds like chaos for quite a few schools. I think it would help to move the drop dead xfer date back to mid January.

Well I suppose I'll see a mass exodus from Austin this spring :/

There will be winners and losers based on this for sure. As an SDSU fan I am very excited about this as we have done incredibly well with transfers over the years and have had very few players ever transfer out. I think this dramatically helps G5s in trophy locations and really hurts power five schools in crappy locations.

balling on the beach. UC Santa Barbara will benefit more often than not from this as well.

Proposes? UCF has transfers that could start now if implemented.

(10-13-2020 09:08 AM)UABGrad Wrote:  https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/13/nc...ligibility

Quote: Under the proposal developed by the NCAA Working Group on Transfers, athletes are afforded a one-time transfer during their athletic careers without suffering the penalty of sitting out a season, reversing a policy from the 1960s. Fall and winter sport athletes would have to notify their schools of a transfer by May 1, with an exception extending the date to July 1 for an end-of-the-year head coaching change or the non-renewal of scholarships.

I will miss the days of following a player develop for 4 years.

I support this fully. I truly want the NCAA to hold true to its amateurism and STUDENT-athlete ideals. The slow transformation of the league, particularly in football, to some sort of minor/development league is truly a shame. The NCAA has certainly benefitted from it, along with the schools. If they are going to claim the athletes are students, then like students they should be able to transfer to their institution of choice if accepted and without penalty.

(10-13-2020 09:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 09:08 AM)UABGrad Wrote:  https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/13/nc...ligibility

Quote: Under the proposal developed by the NCAA Working Group on Transfers, athletes are afforded a one-time transfer during their athletic careers without suffering the penalty of sitting out a season, reversing a policy from the 1960s. Fall and winter sport athletes would have to notify their schools of a transfer by May 1, with an exception extending the date to July 1 for an end-of-the-year head coaching change or the non-renewal of scholarships.

I will miss the days of following a player develop for 4 years.

I like it, and I think G5 might benefit. A 3-star guy goes to Ole Miss because he thinks he will be starting in the SEC, quickly realizes that he's buried on the depth chart? He can now transfer to Memphis or UAB seemlessly without the onerous burden of sitting out a year, he can suit up immediately.

The whole "transfer portal" concept is good for the G5, as it reduces the ability of the P5 to hoard and warehouse talent. IMO, that's a reason we've already seen more G5 success vs P5, and this will help more.

bull****. a 3 star guy goes to Memphis and blows up into a superstar by his sophomore season. Now he gets to transfer to a P5 school and doesn't have to sit out a year. That helps the P5 out 1000000000% more than the G5 and you damn well know it.

******* free agency in college sports..

Yeah, sitting on ice for a year had its benefits across D1. This seems like a farm system. P5 schools can dump and pilfer at will. I feel for the freshmen who get recruited into big programs who know their competition can be...anyone? It’s going to get out of hand.

(10-15-2020 07:50 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 09:08 AM)UABGrad Wrote:  https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/13/nc...ligibility

Quote: Under the proposal developed by the NCAA Working Group on Transfers, athletes are afforded a one-time transfer during their athletic careers without suffering the penalty of sitting out a season, reversing a policy from the 1960s. Fall and winter sport athletes would have to notify their schools of a transfer by May 1, with an exception extending the date to July 1 for an end-of-the-year head coaching change or the non-renewal of scholarships.

I will miss the days of following a player develop for 4 years.

I support this fully. I truly want the NCAA to hold true to its amateurism and STUDENT-athlete ideals. The slow transformation of the league, particularly in football, to some sort of minor/development league is truly a shame. The NCAA has certainly benefitted from it, along with the schools. If they are going to claim the athletes are students, then like students they should be able to transfer to their institution of choice if accepted and without penalty.

Not to be too cynical, but amateurism and student-athlete concepts have always been more of a pretense than an ideal. Football players have been paid under the table for 150 years, and athletes have never been held to the same academic standards as regular students. Of course, that latter statement has been true of non-athlete sons of wealthy alumni for at least that long.

(10-13-2020 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The whole "transfer portal" concept is good for the G5, as it reduces the ability of the P5 to hoard and warehouse talent. IMO, that's a reason we've already seen more G5 success vs P5, and this will help more.

It will also be good for more than half of the P5 football teams, because there are only 10-15 teams, at most, that are so deep at a position that the #3 guy on their depth chart at that position could be a starter on many other teams. A linebacker who can't get playing time at Ohio State might still be good enough to start for half the teams in the Big Ten. Maybe linebacker X is recruited hard by Maryland but goes to Ohio State instead; and maybe the Maryland coach who recruited X as a high schooler can land the player a year or two later as a transfer.

Most importantly, it's good for the athletes because it gives them more options.

(10-15-2020 10:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The whole "transfer portal" concept is good for the G5, as it reduces the ability of the P5 to hoard and warehouse talent. IMO, that's a reason we've already seen more G5 success vs P5, and this will help more.

It will also be good for more than half of the P5 football teams, because there are only 10-15 teams, at most, that are so deep at a position that the #3 guy on their depth chart at that position could be a starter on many other teams. A linebacker who can't get playing time at Ohio State might still be good enough to start for half the teams in the Big Ten. Maybe linebacker X is recruited hard by Maryland but goes to Ohio State instead; and maybe the Maryland coach who recruited X as a high schooler can land the player a year or two later as a transfer.

Good point. Even though some fear that this will make "the rich richer" the more likely net effect will be to distribute talent downwards, from upper P5 to lower P5, and from P5 to G5. There will be some cases of the opposite, but generally, it will have a somewhat redistributive effect.

The reality is that we have been building towards this for years, and, frankly, we are essentially already there with the mass waivers granted for immediate eligibility anyways. There are concerns, as with any radical change to the college sports structure, but - over time - they will likely be considered as some many unnecessary worries. There was a point in time when freshmen were not allowed to play, when games were not on TV, when there wasn’t a college football playoff, and when there were only 25 teams in March Madness.

I’m in favor of it because it removes any inconsistency (it’s a blanket transfer rule) and it will not increase the talent gaps between the have’s and the have not’s. If a small school loses its top player to a bigger program, that player should have their right to use their talents to create a better opportunity. Similarly, for ever skilled player that comes in, it essentially forces another player out (and down) the ladder to smaller schools anyways.

I also look at it this way: Students are not forced to sit out a year when they transfer schools academically. Why should they be athletically? They aren’t forced to sit out a year academically in the name of fairness. If an Engineering student at an above elite engineering program is struggling, they have the ability to transfer to another school that, in their mind, is less demanding and stressful. They don’t wait a year to enroll. We only see this in college sports. IMO, it is outdated and unnecessary. College students, regardless of athletics, should be allowed to transfer without penalty if they wish. The colleges and coaches do not own them or their ability to participate.

(10-13-2020 12:16 PM)SDSUguy Wrote:  There will be winners and losers based on this for sure. As an SDSU fan I am very excited about this as we have done incredibly well with transfers over the years and have had very few players ever transfer out. I think this dramatically helps G5s in trophy locations and really hurts power five schools in crappy locations.

Seems a win for a head football coach looking to leverage a 10-win season into a higher salary. Now it is even easier for that coach to take his players with him if he changes jobs? Or negotiate a substantial raise with his current employer?

With this kind of change, I do wonder about the FCS programs who grew fat from the FBS transfer trough. Over time, talent who wanted to suit right back up could find ways to play D1A, but not everyone. Now, these new rules?

If you’re NDSU, JMU, UDel...now what?

(10-15-2020 12:11 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  With this kind of change, I do wonder about the FCS programs who grew fat from the FBS transfer trough. Over time, talent who wanted to suit right back up could find ways to play D1A, but not everyone. Now, these new rules?

If you’re NDSU, JMU, UDel...now what?

That's a good point. Many D1 players would go down to FCS so they could play immediately, so this is likely to cut off that supply.

(10-15-2020 12:11 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  With this kind of change, I do wonder about the FCS programs who grew fat from the FBS transfer trough. Over time, talent who wanted to suit right back up could find ways to play D1A, but not everyone. Now, these new rules?

If you’re NDSU, JMU, UDel...now what?

Move up to FBS.

(10-15-2020 05:26 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-15-2020 12:11 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  With this kind of change, I do wonder about the FCS programs who grew fat from the FBS transfer trough. Over time, talent who wanted to suit right back up could find ways to play D1A, but not everyone. Now, these new rules?

If you’re NDSU, JMU, UDel...now what?

Move up to FBS.

Or not and embrace a huge shift in your football operations. And risk losing donors and fans.

I don’t think everyone moves up who kind of operates like that and runs a big program. But, FCS could really go down the crapper in terms of quality.