Pac 12 suggests more liberal transfer rule.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

(05-30-2014 07:19 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  Pac 12 suggests more liberal transfer rule.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

I agree 100% with GOL, this will lead to big time tampering and programs like Temple with become the JV programs for the P5.

If a head coach leaves a program I am all for kids being able to transfer without penalty, they sign on to play for coach X and a year later coach Y comes in with a completely new system, it’s not what the kid signed on for they shouldn’t be penalized for transferring. Outside of that the sitting out one year rule makes sense and the rule should stay.

I think there are legitimate reasons for a player not to be penalized for a transfer (hardships and for when a head coach bails on a program). However, this rule is destined to be abused. Basically the G5 will become feeder systems for the P5. Each year we will see something akin to the “Free Agent” sweepstakes that we see in professional sports. The best G5 players will be going around the country visiting schools to make their selection.

(05-30-2014 07:29 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 07:19 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  Pac 12 suggests more liberal transfer rule.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

I agree 100% with GOL, this will lead to big time tampering and programs like Temple with become the JV programs for the P5.

If a head coach leaves a program I am all for kids being able to transfer without penalty, they sign on to play for coach X and a year later coach Y comes in with a completely new system, it’s not what the kid signed on for they shouldn’t be penalized for transferring. Outside of that the sitting out one year rule makes sense and the rule should stay.

At the same time, doesn't it seem feasible that some P5 players would transfer "down" to be able to play immediately. I agree that this rule would probably favor the P5 more, but I think we would also see an influx of quality 3* P5 players that would transfer for the immediate playing time that some G5 schools could offer.

(05-30-2014 07:42 AM)pirate4105 Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 07:29 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 07:19 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  Pac 12 suggests more liberal transfer rule.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

I agree 100% with GOL, this will lead to big time tampering and programs like Temple with become the JV programs for the P5.

If a head coach leaves a program I am all for kids being able to transfer without penalty, they sign on to play for coach X and a year later coach Y comes in with a completely new system, it’s not what the kid signed on for they shouldn’t be penalized for transferring. Outside of that the sitting out one year rule makes sense and the rule should stay.

At the same time, doesn't it seem feasible that some P5 players would transfer "down" to be able to play immediately. I agree that this rule would probably favor the P5 more, but I think we would also see an influx of quality 3* P5 players that would transfer for the immediate playing time that some G5 schools could offer.

True. They go FCS now.

I can't see how this will get support within the power five league as well. Good players that want playing time will leave to less power five or G5 school. Great players at losing programs or G5 schools might transfer to Ohio State, Alabama, Florida State, or whatever power might need them.

(05-30-2014 07:42 AM)pirate4105 Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 07:29 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 07:19 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  Pac 12 suggests more liberal transfer rule.
http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/

I agree 100% with GOL, this will lead to big time tampering and programs like Temple with become the JV programs for the P5.

If a head coach leaves a program I am all for kids being able to transfer without penalty, they sign on to play for coach X and a year later coach Y comes in with a completely new system, it’s not what the kid signed on for they shouldn’t be penalized for transferring. Outside of that the sitting out one year rule makes sense and the rule should stay.

At the same time, doesn't it seem feasible that some P5 players would transfer "down" to be able to play immediately. I agree that this rule would probably favor the P5 more, but I think we would also see an influx of quality 3* P5 players that would transfer for the immediate playing time that some G5 schools could offer.

That’s true, but I believe the impact would be much greater on the G5 schools. As an ECU fan how would you guys feel if in the off season after the 2012 season it was announced that Shane Carden just transferred to UNC to immediately become their starting QB for the next 2 seasons. In other news a 3 start WR would only played sparingly on special teams for 2 seasons at NC State was transferring to ECU.

I’m just using this as an example, you can substitute P.J Walker for Carden, Temple for ECU and Penn State for UNC and make the same example, my point is the losses won’t be offset by the gains in most cases. We will be trading proven stars for role playing backups.

I would agree with a more liberal transfer rule, in that there should be more waivers to players to transfer without sitting out. Especially with regards to player who were injured, redshirted, etc. I would not even mind seeing an exception made for players who only played a certain percentage of plays/time/innings, etc. But not carte blanche transferring. no that would not work.

Also allowing players free movement if a coach is fired (as an exception) is a VERY bad idea. That makes it near impossible for a school to ever fire a coach.

Going back to the original Sentinel story:

Quote:The bigger point of contention, however, is when athletes with a 2.5 GPA or lower transfer, but their academic performance still counts toward the original team's Academic Progress Rating. If a player jumps from UCF to another school and doesn't perform well in the classroom, the Knights could face academic penalties.

"I think the transfer rule is a major concern, especially the APR," UCF basketball coach Donnie Jones said. "Head coaches are held accountable for kids leaving who don't have a 2.6 and the kids are free to leave on their own regardless, with no penalty."

That's where the abuse would occur. The P5 school that is spending more in academic support or is able to offer the academic redshirt can give the non-P5 school a double-whammy - not only getting a good athlete, but able to penalize the non-P5 school in the process if he fails, while keeping the P5 school's APR score artificially high.

(05-30-2014 07:49 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I can't see how this will get support within the power five league as well. Good players that want playing time will leave to less power five or G5 school. Great players at losing programs or G5 schools might transfer to Ohio State, Alabama, Florida State, or whatever power might need them.

Simple. The P5's could all agree among one another that a transfer between P5's would still require a 1-year penalty. But players plucked from G5's could play right away. Problem solved.

(05-30-2014 09:58 AM)Knightshift Wrote:  

(05-30-2014 07:49 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I can't see how this will get support within the power five league as well. Good players that want playing time will leave to less power five or G5 school. Great players at losing programs or G5 schools might transfer to Ohio State, Alabama, Florida State, or whatever power might need them.

Simple. The P5's could all agree among one another that a transfer between P5's would still require a 1-year penalty. But players plucked from G5's could play right away. Problem solved.

No, they could not,as that would be an area for all Division 1, not just the P5, so it wouldn't be subject to autonomy. Besides, they want to loosen transfer rules, not make them more restrictive.

If anything, they're probably angling against the ability of anyone restricting transfer movement to schools, such as coaches or conferences saying that SA's can get a release, but only to or against certain institutions. They might also be looking to relax the restriction of transfers having to sit out a year if they go to a P5, which the rest of D1 could be allowed to adopt if they so choose.

it works both ways. for example, ucf was a finalist for joe flacco's services out of high school and he signed with pitt. then wanted to transfer, 1-a schools weren't in consideration because he wanted to play right away, so he went to delaware and then got drafted in the first round.

it'll be a situation where you win some and you lose some, more wins than losses though.

believe it or not, someone like buffalo's khalil mack wouldn't have abandoned them because florida or fsu started recruiting him after his junior year at buffalo. he's not going to mess with the situation that put him in position to get to the nfl just to join an unfamiliar situation with a whole lot of risk.

(05-30-2014 07:48 PM)Meatwad Wrote:  believe it or not, someone like buffalo's khalil mack wouldn't have abandoned them because florida or fsu started recruiting him after his junior year at buffalo.

You know that for fact?

If he would have jumped to FSU, he would have played on National TV for most of their 14 games this year and a National Title.

i don't know anything for a fact, just know that when money is at stake it's not so simple. if college football was the end of the line then yeah players would want to be at the best schools because they're competing for the ultimate prize, but college is just a means to an end. the ultimate prize is a good size nfl paycheck.

what FSU player was drafted before him with all that TV coverage? he had a good thing at buffalo, he was developed properly (what elite LBs has FSU been developing?) and had a system that was designed with him in mind. leave that to go learn a new system and new teammates, different coaching personalities. why mess with that for the possibility of being on tv every week with FSU, so that he could potentially end up a top 5 pick?

when penn state got their sanctions their starting RB silas redd decided he was going to transfer to USC well that worked out like **** for him, he ended up undrafted.

now in basketball these transfer rules would be another story all together.

The B1G's response to the PAC proposal is interesting. They back everything, but single out raising APR, "one and done" culture in bball, and transfer rules...instead saying these issues warrant further examination. Hmm...

Quote:The Big Ten continues to strongly support full cost of attendance scholarships, reasonable on-going medical or insurance assistance to student-athletes, continued efforts to reduce the incidence of disabling injury, guaranteed scholarships to complete a bachelor’s degree, decreased time demands and enhanced time to fully engage in campus life, adjusted restrictions on preparing for careers based on advice and counsel of agents and a meaningful role in governance for student-athletes.

The COP/C also examined three other principal objectives for reform proposed by the Pac-12 presidents – strengthening the Academic Progress Rate (APR) requirements for post-season play, the “one and done” culture in men’s basketball and liberalizing current limits on transfer rules. While the concept of increasing APR requirements has not been discussed in the past, the Big Ten has long supported increased academic standards for all institutions. With respect to the issues of the “one and done” culture and transfer rules, the COP/C agrees that these are important issues that should be examined and addressed in cogent ways.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...nomy-push/