(02-04-2020 11:39 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 11:36 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 08:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room here, nobody goes pro from college gymnastics and swimming. The rules are different because the reality is different.

I don’t think it’s fair for unrestricted coach movement, but not player movement. It’s not totally restricted player movement, they just have to sit out a year or play JuCo.

I also see this turning very ugly in the underground recruiting scene, and to think the conferences won’t set-up restrictions anyway would be naive. No way will a Michigan player be allowed to transfer to Ohio State without sitting out.

Baker Mayfield.

(didn't have to sit out after leaving Texas Tech for Oklahoma)