Transfer Waiver Working Group is trying to make a system where all students can transfer without sitting out a year a reality.

MAC Commish is quoted throughout, and is "all in" on this.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...-expansion

On one hand, the P5s will simply use the pool of budding G5 stars (e.g., Jayden Reed) as a source of recruiting. I become concerned that following studs like Big Ben, Michael Turner, A Brown, Jennings, etc., through an entire MAC stay will become rarer.

On the other hand, overshadowed second- and third-stringers in the P5s looking for PT may be convinced to head to the MAC.

Overall, I feel like the cons outweigh the pros here, where the revolving doors will really start spinning once this is in place, watering down the fun of the game. Although I know it boosts players' rights (I mean, if coaches like Mel Tucker can up and leave a programs hanging, why not players?).

(02-18-2020 04:35 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Transfer Waiver Working Group is trying to make a system where all students can transfer without sitting out a year a reality.

MAC Commish is quoted throughout, and is "all in" on this.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...-expansion

On one hand, the P5s will simply use the pool of budding G5 stars (e.g., Jayden Reed) as a source of recruiting. I become concerned that following studs like Big Ben, Michael Turner, A Brown, Jennings, etc., through an entire MAC stay will become rarer.

On the other hand, overshadowed second- and third-stringers in the P5s looking for PT may be convinced to head to the MAC.

Overall, I feel like the cons outweigh the pros here, where the revolving doors will really start spinning once this is in place, watering down the fun of the game. Although I know it boosts players' rights (I mean, if coaches like Mel Tucker can up and leave a programs hanging, why not players?).

I really don't know what to think about this. Most fans would like all the players -- at least the good ones -- to stay for four years. That hasn't happened in years.

This would get rid of grad transfers, which really have little to do with graduate school. I'm certain not many grad transfers actually get a masters degree.

I'm sure some coaches would try to poach players, perhaps even within their conference. Could/should that be controlled? Would coaches have to be constantly recruiting their own teams? It could be chaotic.

But the proposed new rule would give players a lot more power over their own lives.

The immediate eligibility one-time transfer is already in effect for every sport except football, men's and women's basketball, baseball and men's hockey.

The proposal, I'd think, is still quite aways from being official.

Big Ten and SEC also have endorsed this.

It is just another thing which will widen the gap between the Power teams and everyone else. They will take our stars more often and we will get their rejects more often.

Is it good for the student athletes? There are all kinds of reasons you can find to make it look positive, and I think just as many negatives. Obviously "old fashioned ideas like working your way up through the system or playing your role or working hard and maturing to get better and earn your spot or valuing your degree more than your athletic career seem to be passe. On the other hand, good players can go to a higher level of competition and attention, guys who started off too high and are not experiencing success may be able to move to a level where they will succeed.

I agree with the comments here.

I hope G5 football doesn't become a pool for P5 to draw from.

This will be the death of mid-majors as we know it.

(02-19-2020 01:52 PM)DICK Wrote:  It is just another thing which will widen the gap between the Power teams and everyone else. They will take our stars more often and we will get their rejects more often.

Is it good for the student athletes? There are all kinds of reasons you can find to make it look positive, and I think just as many negatives. Obviously "old fashioned ideas like working your way up through the system or playing your role or working hard and maturing to get better and earn your spot or valuing your degree more than your athletic career seem to be passe. On the other hand, good players can go to a higher level of competition and attention, guys who started off too high and are not experiencing success may be able to move to a level where they will succeed.

Definitely agree here. Will add that most G5 players from the MAC etc do not make it to the NFL, say 5 out of a class near 25 or 20%. Hope the player likes his university and the degree for after football.

College kids should not be held captive. If they want to change schools, they deserve the freedom to do so without paying a penalty of sitting out for a year.

In reality, a lot of big school guys who do not get much playing time would love the opportunity to start for a MAC team without having to sit out a year. I think overall it is positive for mid majors.

(02-23-2020 11:33 AM)Rocket75 Wrote:  College kids should not be held captive. If they want to change schools, they deserve the freedom to do so without paying a penalty of sitting out for a year.

In reality, a lot of big school guys who do not get much playing time would love the opportunity to start for a MAC team without having to sit out a year. I think overall it is positive for mid majors.

I agree with this. There are far more bench ridden decent players in P5s than there are G5 players that can get significant playing time in the P5s. However, are enough willing to xfer to the MAC?

What I worry more about is mass exodus after Fr/So years from everywhere to everywhere. Will this rule result in teams made up of half or more xfers? It will be interesting to watch this play out.

It would suck to redshirt a kid and have him xfer after that year.............ie..... we invest a year and they bolt w/o penalty. Here is my not well thought out idea.............For this I would say they owe one year. Either stay with the team they redshirted with for 1 year or lose one year if they xfer. Once they 'repay' that redshirt year, they are back on normal ground.

Even with players having to sit out a year, you have seen a huge uptick in transfers in college basketball. I think basketball is what's going to be hit hardest by this as coaches prefer older, experienced rosters.

(02-23-2020 03:07 PM)Siborg Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 11:33 AM)Rocket75 Wrote:  College kids should not be held captive. If they want to change schools, they deserve the freedom to do so without paying a penalty of sitting out for a year.

In reality, a lot of big school guys who do not get much playing time would love the opportunity to start for a MAC team without having to sit out a year. I think overall it is positive for mid majors.

I agree with this. There are far more bench ridden decent players in P5s than there are G5 players that can get significant playing time in the P5s. However, are enough willing to xfer to the MAC?

What I worry more about is mass exodus after Fr/So years from everywhere to everywhere. Will this rule result in teams made up of half or more xfers? It will be interesting to watch this play out.

It would suck to redshirt a kid and have him xfer after that year.............ie..... we invest a year and they bolt w/o penalty. Here is my not well thought out idea.............For this I would say they owe one year. Either stay with the team they redshirted with for 1 year or lose one year if they xfer. Once they 'repay' that redshirt year, they are back on normal ground.

This is such a crock, especially for football. Think about this ..

Player enters college in January so he can participate in spring football and summer conditioning. Player then gets four games to 'showcase' himself without losing a year of eligibility.

Then, following off-season conditioning and another tour of spring football, he thinks now it is time to transfer.

Personally, the rules have been bent enough (especially for football) that the NCAA should stick to its "student" guns and make these kids sit a year before they play.

Understand, the player above if he has been doing his academic work should be winding up his sophomore calendar. Two years after transferring (but now a FB sophomore) he graduates and can freely transfer again still with two years of eligibility remaining for football.

What a bunch of BS ...

Meanwhile, the schools that do the heavy lifting in terms of graduation and playing time, in the middle, get short-changed coming and going.

(02-23-2020 04:43 PM)cleveland Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 03:07 PM)Siborg Wrote:  

(02-23-2020 11:33 AM)Rocket75 Wrote:  College kids should not be held captive. If they want to change schools, they deserve the freedom to do so without paying a penalty of sitting out for a year.

In reality, a lot of big school guys who do not get much playing time would love the opportunity to start for a MAC team without having to sit out a year. I think overall it is positive for mid majors.

I agree with this. There are far more bench ridden decent players in P5s than there are G5 players that can get significant playing time in the P5s. However, are enough willing to xfer to the MAC?

What I worry more about is mass exodus after Fr/So years from everywhere to everywhere. Will this rule result in teams made up of half or more xfers? It will be interesting to watch this play out.

It would suck to redshirt a kid and have him xfer after that year.............ie..... we invest a year and they bolt w/o penalty. Here is my not well thought out idea.............For this I would say they owe one year. Either stay with the team they redshirted with for 1 year or lose one year if they xfer. Once they 'repay' that redshirt year, they are back on normal ground.

This is such a crock, especially for football. Think about this ..

Player enters college in January so he can participate in spring football and summer conditioning. Player then gets four games to 'showcase' himself without losing a year of eligibility.

Then, following off-season conditioning and another tour of spring football, he thinks now it is time to transfer.

Personally, the rules have been bent enough (especially for football) that the NCAA should stick to its "student" guns and make these kids sit a year before they play.

Understand, the player above if he has been doing his academic work should be winding up his sophomore calendar. Two years after transferring (but now a FB sophomore) he graduates and can freely transfer again still with two years of eligibility remaining for football.

What a bunch of BS ...

Meanwhile, the schools that do the heavy lifting in terms of graduation and playing time, in the middle, get short-changed coming and going.

You never took a job to position yourself for a better job. It's the pursuit of better oneself. If the other things are not there, campus life, team chemistry, coaching staff, quality of professor or ta's then they my leave. When it happens to my team or teams in my league, will not like it. Still for the students athletes. Granted don't like the some of the crap.

I'll support players being stuck to their commitment the same time coaches are held to theirs. If a player has to sit out a year before transferring so should a coach when he changes jobs prior to the completion of his signed contract.

Jon Steinbrecher fully understand the landscape with respect to (football) transfers. The Power 5's are already attracting the NFL quality prospects from G5 universities through the Graduation transfer rule, so the downside to G5's on roster loss with this new proposal seems minimal. Think of it this way, how many under valued Power 5 Student Athletes, knowing that a G5 opportunity is a legitimate path to the NFL, wouldn't want to transfer. This change could be as impact-full to improving G5 roster quality as the limit to 85 scholarships was.

(02-27-2020 02:53 AM)NIUpride Wrote:  Jon Steinbrecher fully understand the landscape with respect to (football) transfers. The Power 5's are already attracting the NFL quality prospects from G5 universities through the Graduation transfer rule, so the downside to G5's on roster loss with this new proposal seems minimal. Think of it this way, how many under valued Power 5 Student Athletes, knowing that a G5 opportunity is a legitimate path to the NFL, wouldn't want to transfer. This change could be as impact-full to improving G5 roster quality as the limit to 85 scholarships was.

I understand your points.

Best I can say is that we'll just need to see if the intended (and unintended) consequences occur.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the group MOST effected are those who redshirted as frosh. To them, they sat one and then would have to sit another season as a transfer sitout.

So a 3-star recruit goes to say UofM, OSU, etc. and find out even after a redshirt year he is having a hard time breaking into the 2-deeps, then a transfer is a great option to him.

He might want to transfer to a B1G like Northwestern or a G5 school assessing the pluses and minuses of the options of each.

What I fear is that recruit X wanted to go to say MSU. MSU showed interest but was full at his position. He has a very good start to his MAC career and then decides to transfer to MSU when the opportunity arises. That is great for the player. Bad for the losing school.

I suspect this rule will have a much bigger impact on MAC basketball than it will on football. In basketball we already see a wave of 5th year seniors transferring to bigger programs. Not so much in football. In recent years alone I can name Utomi, Robotham, and Antino Jackson who were all starters at Akron, but left their final season. Instead of these guys waiting until their 5th year to transfer, they will just end up transferring after their 2nd or 3rd season.

(02-19-2020 01:52 PM)DICK Wrote:  It is just another thing which will widen the gap between the Power teams and everyone else. They will take our stars more often and we will get their rejects more often.

Is it good for the student athletes? There are all kinds of reasons you can find to make it look positive, and I think just as many negatives. Obviously "old fashioned ideas like working your way up through the system or playing your role or working hard and maturing to get better and earn your spot or valuing your degree more than your athletic career seem to be passe. On the other hand, good players can go to a higher level of competition and attention, guys who started off too high and are not experiencing success may be able to move to a level where they will succeed.

I don't think it matters too much to the P5 as they already have as much of the basketball strength as what they can collectively manage.

At the MAC level I think it can create a Buffalo effect where the very top programs are going to be the target for transfers. Historically quite a few quality transfers have made their way down from the P5 to the MAC. The MAC losing players to the P5 is a new thing because a star doesn't have to sit out a year.

If you were a star then at WMU/CMU/EMU with little chance of making the NCAAs then it makes sense to head to a P5. This is going to hurt the bottom teams and make the MAC top heavy.