(04-16-2021 08:49 AM)esayem Wrote:  This isn’t as big of a deal as I thought. I was thinking it was unlimited transfers without having to sit out. This season is nuts because it’s new, but I imagine things will settle down in the future.

This is actually a great idea for when some new slimeball AD comes in and fires a coach because they want to shake things up. Now those players aren’t stuck with either playing for a coach they didn’t intend to or having to sit out a year.

Yep, and also when a coach leaves on his own: now all those whining players who say "but but but the coach promised he would never leave our family !!!" and were stuck, can now un-stuck themselves.

Fair is fair.

(04-15-2021 07:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 07:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 02:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 02:13 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  Academic research suggests that even across thousands of basketball transfers, both players *and* schools benefit from increased transfers. Athletes who change schools are more likely to see additional minutes and generate additional win-shares.

Schools benefit by being able to free up roster spots from kids who don't want to be there. Kids get a chance to find better fits for themselves. Win-Win-WIn.

I think it creates special issues for football due to the annual 25 player scholarship cap. That cap is going to need to be adjusted to reflect losses due to the transfer of scholarship players---otherwise its going to cause problems for team competetiveness as well as causing there to be many transfer kids failing to get scholarship landing spots despite the fact that there are many teams that are well below the 85 scholarship limit willing to take them. Its not that hard to fix---but apparently....surprise surprise----nobody thought this through.

25 is fine. 4X25 is 100. And you don't need 85. The only reason for 85 is that coaches at the big schools want to be able to make mistakes and still have cushion. It used to be there was a 60 player roster travel limit.

Its fine because the number was designed to handle normal attrition, injury, and wash outs. It was never intended to deal with free transfer in the volume we are going to see. If you suffer an unnatural loss of 20 to 40 kids transferring out in a single shot (like you might if a coach leaves for a better job)---you'll probably never recover....and if you do---it will take years. Its functionally no different than what happens when a team is hit by a massive NCAA scholarship penalty. I dont think thats the intent---but thats what will happen.

Of note:

UMass is currently projected to have 77 scholarships filled for this fall (if no one else leaves) and only has one scholarship left to give. Meaning even by maxing out we'd only be at 78.

And this is the highest it's been in years for the team.

I think Kansas has also had problems fielding a full 85 scholarship players on a yearly basis. I think a rule change to cap scholarships per year at "25 + Number of Outgoing Transfers" would be a massive win-win-win. Win for the players, since more scholarships are available. Win for the coaches, since they can remake their roster and replace players immediately rather than a year or two down the road. Win for the programs/schools at large, since they can stay at or near the 85 max scholarship roster size and have more enrolled students (assuming educational stuff matters in this context).

(04-16-2021 09:17 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  I think Kansas has also had problems fielding a full 85 scholarship players on a yearly basis. I think a rule change to cap scholarships per year at "25 + Number of Outgoing Transfers" would be a massive win-win-win. Win for the players, since more scholarships are available. Win for the coaches, since they can remake their roster and replace players immediately rather than a year or two down the road. Win for the programs/schools at large, since they can stay at or near the 85 max scholarship roster size and have more enrolled students (assuming educational stuff matters in this context).

Agreed - this would be a solid change. If UMass were able to offer 8 more scholarships this year instead of only one (and I know we're not the only ones in this sort of scenario) there would be a lot more people out there that have the hope of landing somewhere where they'd be able to contribute.

However, would it be only applied to people transferring out who were on scholarship? I'm actually not certain if PWOs and such are tracked in the same numbers, but if they transfer out in hopes of landing a scholarship somewhere (and getting playing time and such) then it wouldn't reduce the number of scholarships the original university is offering.

I think the impact is being slightly overstated. Most players like their school and the guys who transfer were likely doing it anyway. Probably see just as much or more movement of players going down to G5 and FCS than the opposite.

The biggest impact here will probably be with QBs

(04-16-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 08:49 AM)esayem Wrote:  This isn’t as big of a deal as I thought. I was thinking it was unlimited transfers without having to sit out. This season is nuts because it’s new, but I imagine things will settle down in the future.

This is actually a great idea for when some new slimeball AD comes in and fires a coach because they want to shake things up. Now those players aren’t stuck with either playing for a coach they didn’t intend to or having to sit out a year.

Yep, and also when a coach leaves on his own: now all those whining players who say "but but but the coach promised he would never leave our family !!!" and were stuck, can now un-stuck themselves.

Fair is fair.

Not only can they "un-stuck" themselves, what's to stop them from following that coach to his new school if he'll have them?

(04-16-2021 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 08:49 AM)esayem Wrote:  This isn’t as big of a deal as I thought. I was thinking it was unlimited transfers without having to sit out. This season is nuts because it’s new, but I imagine things will settle down in the future.

This is actually a great idea for when some new slimeball AD comes in and fires a coach because they want to shake things up. Now those players aren’t stuck with either playing for a coach they didn’t intend to or having to sit out a year.

Yep, and also when a coach leaves on his own: now all those whining players who say "but but but the coach promised he would never leave our family !!!" and were stuck, can now un-stuck themselves.

Fair is fair.

Not only can they "un-stuck" themselves, what's to stop them from following that coach to his new school if he'll have them?

Nothing.

To me the main thing here is the ending of the disparate treatment of athletes. There was IMO no non-greedy explanation as to why the NCAA had a "sit out" rule for five sports but not 19 other sports.

(04-16-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 08:49 AM)esayem Wrote:  This isn’t as big of a deal as I thought. I was thinking it was unlimited transfers without having to sit out. This season is nuts because it’s new, but I imagine things will settle down in the future.

This is actually a great idea for when some new slimeball AD comes in and fires a coach because they want to shake things up. Now those players aren’t stuck with either playing for a coach they didn’t intend to or having to sit out a year.

Yep, and also when a coach leaves on his own: now all those whining players who say "but but but the coach promised he would never leave our family !!!" and were stuck, can now un-stuck themselves.

Fair is fair.

Im fine with that. Im just saying the school should not be down 30 scholarship players just because a coach left or was hired away. Let the school utilize those left behind scholarship slots to replace those players who dont want to be there with players who WOULD like be there. Fair is fair. You shouldnt get the equivelent of a massive NCAA probationary scholarship penalty just because a school with more money was able to poach your coach. Besides, letting schools hard hit by transfers reload helps other players in the portal by giving them more options.

(04-16-2021 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 08:49 AM)esayem Wrote:  This isn’t as big of a deal as I thought. I was thinking it was unlimited transfers without having to sit out. This season is nuts because it’s new, but I imagine things will settle down in the future.

This is actually a great idea for when some new slimeball AD comes in and fires a coach because they want to shake things up. Now those players aren’t stuck with either playing for a coach they didn’t intend to or having to sit out a year.

Yep, and also when a coach leaves on his own: now all those whining players who say "but but but the coach promised he would never leave our family !!!" and were stuck, can now un-stuck themselves.

Fair is fair.

Not only can they "un-stuck" themselves, what's to stop them from following that coach to his new school if he'll have them?

Nothing.

To me the main thing here is the ending of the disparate treatment of athletes. There was IMO no non-greedy explanation as to why the NCAA had a "sit out" rule for five sports but not 19 other sports.

Im always surprised that nobody understands that answer---lol---free transfers were allowed because nobody cared about the other 19 sports.

(04-16-2021 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 08:49 AM)esayem Wrote:  This isn’t as big of a deal as I thought. I was thinking it was unlimited transfers without having to sit out. This season is nuts because it’s new, but I imagine things will settle down in the future.

This is actually a great idea for when some new slimeball AD comes in and fires a coach because they want to shake things up. Now those players aren’t stuck with either playing for a coach they didn’t intend to or having to sit out a year.

Yep, and also when a coach leaves on his own: now all those whining players who say "but but but the coach promised he would never leave our family !!!" and were stuck, can now un-stuck themselves.

Fair is fair.

Not only can they "un-stuck" themselves, what's to stop them from following that coach to his new school if he'll have them?

What will stop almost all of them from doing that is that no team in any college sport has enough available scholarships to permit a mass exodus in which every player leaving goes to the same new team.

(04-16-2021 01:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 08:49 AM)esayem Wrote:  This isn’t as big of a deal as I thought. I was thinking it was unlimited transfers without having to sit out. This season is nuts because it’s new, but I imagine things will settle down in the future.

This is actually a great idea for when some new slimeball AD comes in and fires a coach because they want to shake things up. Now those players aren’t stuck with either playing for a coach they didn’t intend to or having to sit out a year.

Yep, and also when a coach leaves on his own: now all those whining players who say "but but but the coach promised he would never leave our family !!!" and were stuck, can now un-stuck themselves.

Fair is fair.

Not only can they "un-stuck" themselves, what's to stop them from following that coach to his new school if he'll have them?

What will stop almost all of them from doing that is that no team in any college sport has enough available scholarships to permit a mass exodus in which every player leaving goes to the same new team.

Unless that team had a lot of players just transfer out because their coach had been fired.

Let's stop comparing coaches to players. That's just obtuse.

For one thing, players don't have contract buyouts. If a coach doesn't pan out the way an AD hopes, he loses his job. If a recruit doesn't pan out like his coach hopes, he keeps his scholarship.

And players already had a free transfer without losing a year...transfer down a division or graduate and get a free transfer.

Let's also not pretend like a lot of these players are all bout their education. They're deluded about their chances at the NFL or NBA and many of these people that transfer won't be on track for the graduation and the same idiots who think the transfer rules are oppressive will be complaining transfer students are off track from graduating because of the mean NCAA.

(04-15-2021 05:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 04:34 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 01:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 12:32 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 11:43 AM)ken d Wrote:  And I can't imagine that sort of thing sitting well with coaches who are already going to have a much more difficult task when it comes to roster management.

Hilarious.

Coaches get paid millions to do their job and coaches have paid administrative staff to help manage their team (rosters).

Coaches should have open communications with their student-athletes. Entering the portal, or transferring schools, should not be a surprise.

The portal should be a bonanza for coaches who are working to improve their teams. Rather than relying on evaluation of high-school students, coaches now have an opportunity to better gage abilities.

This may be more difficult to old-school coaches. Those that are too one-dimensional disciplinarians or an incapable of change.

Most coaches will quickly adjust to the new environment.

I think this hurts coaches who are good at developing high school kids. It’s actually a bonanza for guys who have struggled to successfully “project” which 2-3 star kids have a high probability of developing or lack the ability to successfully develop 2-3 star kids into high production players by their junior and senior years. Coaches that spend 2 years developing a kid (especially if they have a good reputation for developing kids) may see little return as these kids move just as they are finally big enough and experienced enough to really contribute. I think it’s going to change how most coaches build a roster. Only the really cream of the crop high school kids are going to see scholarship offers. The two/three star guys that used to get offers will have to develop as walk ons so they don’t eat up valuable slots in the 85 scholarship limit while they develop size/skills that may never benefit the school that developed them.

How does anyone know that it is the coach or the school that develops the athlete? Maybe the kid has a passion to learn and actually outgrows a coach. The point being, that today coaches get credit for "developing" kids, when in reality they may be holding them back.

With a few decades of experience, maybe coaches develop a legitimate reputation. But a college athlete's career is at most 4 years. Athletes can't wait-out a coach...coaches have tenure and a university salary. Athletes' clocks are ticking.

If a 5 star recruit doesn't turn into a first round draft pick, does that mean that the coach failed the athlete? Even Nick Saban can't guarantee a 5 star recruit a position.

It's pretty simple really. Nick Saban signs a top 10 class and wins championships. Gus Malzahn consistently in his first 5 years signed top 10 classes and only managed to compete defensively where Steele developed defensive talent taught those 4 star cornerbacks how to play the receiver and ball, and not one or the other as most do, and yet Gus could get a top 10 QB and never develop his foot work, his ability to check off, or improve the efficiency of his passing. Nicks QB's started rough and got decisively better. Auburn's came in as top High School recruits and still looked like a top high school QB when they left. Saban recruited top RB talent and played them all. Gus recruited to RB talent and ran 1 guy until he got injured and then put in #2.

For those who are paying attention there's your difference and it's obvious, hidden right their in plain sight. And Gus is in the majority and Nick is in the minority, and I hate Alabama! Richt couldn't develop talent. And as much as I dislike Franklin for what happened at Vandy, he can develop talent. Mullen can develop a QB better than about anyone, the question is whether he is as solid at X's and O's as he needs to be. But still he's a fine coach for your kid's development.

So yeah we are going to have some average hucksters as coaches who will have donor money to lure away kids developed somewhere else, just not the ones at Alabama or Ohio State, or Clemson. And for the record, what sets Dabo apart is talent development.

Lol regarding using Saban and Malzahn as examples. I was not suggesting that some coaches aren’t superior developers of talent versus other coaches.

My point is that developing talent is complex, and coaching is only a fraction of the equation. Over the past decade Saban has recruited an average of five 5-star recruits per year, yet Alabama has averaged 2.5 NFL first round draft picks per year. Saban has a deserved reputation for developing talent, but up to 50% of the athletes didn’t develop to their potential (assumes 5-star recruits want to play in the NFL and don’t get injured).

Still not convinced that coaches with talent development skills will be losers in this new age. IMO, college coaching is frequently revered to the detriment of the athletes.

(04-16-2021 01:50 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Let's stop comparing coaches to players. That's just obtuse.

For one thing, players don't have contract buyouts. If a coach doesn't pan out the way an AD hopes, he loses his job. If a recruit doesn't pan out like his coach hopes, he keeps his scholarship.

And players already had a free transfer without losing a year...transfer down a division or graduate and get a free transfer.

Let's also not pretend like a lot of these players are all bout their education. They're deluded about their chances at the NFL or NBA and many of these people that transfer won't be on track for the graduation and the same idiots who think the transfer rules are oppressive will be complaining transfer students are off track from graduating because of the mean NCAA.

Unless the rules have changed, aren't scholarships renewed on a yearly basis? That would mean that if a recruit doesn't pan out the coach can revoke the scholarship or, more likely, the coach can tell the kid he isn't part of the plan going forward and perhaps a transfer would be best for him. In that case, is the kid supposed to sit out a year? Seems like crap to me. Also, it isn't like players can transfer every year for free. They get one without a redshirt year. I'm not sure what the NCAA is going to do with regard to the waivers.

(04-16-2021 03:24 PM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 01:50 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Let's stop comparing coaches to players. That's just obtuse.

For one thing, players don't have contract buyouts. If a coach doesn't pan out the way an AD hopes, he loses his job. If a recruit doesn't pan out like his coach hopes, he keeps his scholarship.

And players already had a free transfer without losing a year...transfer down a division or graduate and get a free transfer.

Let's also not pretend like a lot of these players are all bout their education. They're deluded about their chances at the NFL or NBA and many of these people that transfer won't be on track for the graduation and the same idiots who think the transfer rules are oppressive will be complaining transfer students are off track from graduating because of the mean NCAA.

Unless the rules have changed, aren't scholarships renewed on a yearly basis? That would mean that if a recruit doesn't pan out the coach can revoke the scholarship or, more likely, the coach can tell the kid he isn't part of the plan going forward and perhaps a transfer would be best for him. In that case, is the kid supposed to sit out a year? Seems like crap to me. Also, it isn't like players can transfer every year for free. They get one without a redshirt year. I'm not sure what the NCAA is going to do with regard to the waivers.

Yes.

I knew athletes that ended up losing their scholarship. Most were partials that were lost completely. I never personally knew a "full ride" athlete who lost their entire scholarship. Actually, I knew more athletes who lost their scholarship for not adhering to team rules rather than on-field/court performance.

(04-16-2021 03:57 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 03:24 PM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  Unless the rules have changed, aren't scholarships renewed on a yearly basis? That would mean that if a recruit doesn't pan out the coach can revoke the scholarship or, more likely, the coach can tell the kid he isn't part of the plan going forward and perhaps a transfer would be best for him. In that case, is the kid supposed to sit out a year? Seems like crap to me. Also, it isn't like players can transfer every year for free. They get one without a redshirt year. I'm not sure what the NCAA is going to do with regard to the waivers.

Yes.

I knew athletes that ended up losing their scholarship. Most were partials that were lost completely. I never personally knew a "full ride" athlete who lost their entire scholarship. Actually, I knew more athletes who lost their scholarship for not adhering to team rules rather than on-field/court performance.

There are all sorts of stunts that coaches pull to free up scholarships that belong to athletes who underperform and/or are not liked by the coaches. The most common is, as mentioned above, just telling the player that he won't get any playing time in the future and offering to help him find a place to transfer. If that doesn't work, the coaches take the player's stuff out of the locker room and leave it outside the building in bags to get him to take the hint. Or, they can threaten to find minor rules violations, and tell the player that if he doesn't leave voluntarily he'll be kicked out and coaches of other teams will be told he lost his scholarship for rules violations.

(04-16-2021 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 08:49 AM)esayem Wrote:  This isn’t as big of a deal as I thought. I was thinking it was unlimited transfers without having to sit out. This season is nuts because it’s new, but I imagine things will settle down in the future.

This is actually a great idea for when some new slimeball AD comes in and fires a coach because they want to shake things up. Now those players aren’t stuck with either playing for a coach they didn’t intend to or having to sit out a year.

Yep, and also when a coach leaves on his own: now all those whining players who say "but but but the coach promised he would never leave our family !!!" and were stuck, can now un-stuck themselves.

Fair is fair.

Not only can they "un-stuck" themselves, what's to stop them from following that coach to his new school if he'll have them?

Nothing.

To me the main thing here is the ending of the disparate treatment of athletes. There was IMO no non-greedy explanation as to why the NCAA had a "sit out" rule for five sports but not 19 other sports.

Im always surprised that nobody understands that answer---lol---free transfers were allowed because nobody cared about the other 19 sports.

IMO that answer is correct - but also reflects the greed of those making the rules, LOL. So I stand by my claim that there was no non-greedy explanation for the rule.



Also, FWIW, I watched Saban's pre-Spring Game news conference, and he was asked about the new rule. He said he and his staff have already discussed a "strategy" for it, and expect the Tide to be fine.

(04-16-2021 03:13 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 05:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 04:34 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 01:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-15-2021 12:32 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Hilarious.

Coaches get paid millions to do their job and coaches have paid administrative staff to help manage their team (rosters).

Coaches should have open communications with their student-athletes. Entering the portal, or transferring schools, should not be a surprise.

The portal should be a bonanza for coaches who are working to improve their teams. Rather than relying on evaluation of high-school students, coaches now have an opportunity to better gage abilities.

This may be more difficult to old-school coaches. Those that are too one-dimensional disciplinarians or an incapable of change.

Most coaches will quickly adjust to the new environment.

I think this hurts coaches who are good at developing high school kids. It’s actually a bonanza for guys who have struggled to successfully “project” which 2-3 star kids have a high probability of developing or lack the ability to successfully develop 2-3 star kids into high production players by their junior and senior years. Coaches that spend 2 years developing a kid (especially if they have a good reputation for developing kids) may see little return as these kids move just as they are finally big enough and experienced enough to really contribute. I think it’s going to change how most coaches build a roster. Only the really cream of the crop high school kids are going to see scholarship offers. The two/three star guys that used to get offers will have to develop as walk ons so they don’t eat up valuable slots in the 85 scholarship limit while they develop size/skills that may never benefit the school that developed them.

How does anyone know that it is the coach or the school that develops the athlete? Maybe the kid has a passion to learn and actually outgrows a coach. The point being, that today coaches get credit for "developing" kids, when in reality they may be holding them back.

With a few decades of experience, maybe coaches develop a legitimate reputation. But a college athlete's career is at most 4 years. Athletes can't wait-out a coach...coaches have tenure and a university salary. Athletes' clocks are ticking.

If a 5 star recruit doesn't turn into a first round draft pick, does that mean that the coach failed the athlete? Even Nick Saban can't guarantee a 5 star recruit a position.

It's pretty simple really. Nick Saban signs a top 10 class and wins championships. Gus Malzahn consistently in his first 5 years signed top 10 classes and only managed to compete defensively where Steele developed defensive talent taught those 4 star cornerbacks how to play the receiver and ball, and not one or the other as most do, and yet Gus could get a top 10 QB and never develop his foot work, his ability to check off, or improve the efficiency of his passing. Nicks QB's started rough and got decisively better. Auburn's came in as top High School recruits and still looked like a top high school QB when they left. Saban recruited top RB talent and played them all. Gus recruited to RB talent and ran 1 guy until he got injured and then put in #2.

For those who are paying attention there's your difference and it's obvious, hidden right their in plain sight. And Gus is in the majority and Nick is in the minority, and I hate Alabama! Richt couldn't develop talent. And as much as I dislike Franklin for what happened at Vandy, he can develop talent. Mullen can develop a QB better than about anyone, the question is whether he is as solid at X's and O's as he needs to be. But still he's a fine coach for your kid's development.

So yeah we are going to have some average hucksters as coaches who will have donor money to lure away kids developed somewhere else, just not the ones at Alabama or Ohio State, or Clemson. And for the record, what sets Dabo apart is talent development.

Lol regarding using Saban and Malzahn as examples. I was not suggesting that some coaches aren’t superior developers of talent versus other coaches.

My point is that developing talent is complex, and coaching is only a fraction of the equation. Over the past decade Saban has recruited an average of five 5-star recruits per year, yet Alabama has averaged 2.5 NFL first round draft picks per year. Saban has a deserved reputation for developing talent, but up to 50% of the athletes didn’t develop to their potential (assumes 5-star recruits want to play in the NFL and don’t get injured).

Still not convinced that coaches with talent development skills will be losers in this new age. IMO, college coaching is frequently revered to the detriment of the athletes.

Well, anyone who builds teams from overlooked high school talent will. High school kids still have their "one free transfer" card---so a kid who has that card is a more attractive target to poach than one that doesnt. Now--its possible these development coaches will adapt and use the portal to obtain their raw talent. Thus, they can continue to build their team with home developed talent---and because they primarily use the portal for their 25 scholarships each year---none of their guys will still have their "one free transfer card" (thus making their developed talent less attractive to teams looking to use NIL money to lure in a "quick fix" guy to fill a hole in the roster).

(04-16-2021 05:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 12:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-16-2021 08:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yep, and also when a coach leaves on his own: now all those whining players who say "but but but the coach promised he would never leave our family !!!" and were stuck, can now un-stuck themselves.

Fair is fair.

Not only can they "un-stuck" themselves, what's to stop them from following that coach to his new school if he'll have them?

Nothing.

To me the main thing here is the ending of the disparate treatment of athletes. There was IMO no non-greedy explanation as to why the NCAA had a "sit out" rule for five sports but not 19 other sports.

Im always surprised that nobody understands that answer---lol---free transfers were allowed because nobody cared about the other 19 sports.

IMO that answer is correct - but also reflects the greed of those making the rules, LOL. So I stand by my claim that there was no non-greedy explanation for the rule.



Also, FWIW, I watched Saban's pre-Spring Game news conference, and he was asked about the new rule. He said he and his staff have already discussed a "strategy" for it, and expect the Tide to be fine.

lol...yup---'Bama's gunna get who they want either way...so, I doubt there was much fretting going on there.

(04-16-2021 03:24 PM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  Unless the rules have changed, aren't scholarships renewed on a yearly basis? That would mean that if a recruit doesn't pan out the coach can revoke the scholarship or, more likely, the coach can tell the kid he isn't part of the plan going forward and perhaps a transfer would be best for him. In that case, is the kid supposed to sit out a year? Seems like crap to me. Also, it isn't like players can transfer every year for free. They get one without a redshirt year. I'm not sure what the NCAA is going to do with regard to the waivers.

That raises another interesting question. In the event that legislation or court decisions dictate that schools may pay athletes directly (in addition to rather than instead of NIL payments), could players who would then be employees be required to have a contract which could bind the athlete to the school for the duration of his eligibility? That is to say, no transfers without the approval of the employer (the school).