uncle leo

September 6th, 2017 at 11:08 AM ^

Know what their reasons are?

Coaches can be very gross, giving false promises, sitting players for stupid reasons, etc... This would give those kids a chance to transfer from large schools to smaller schools outside of the P5 and get an opportunity to play.

Yeah, you'll get dumb transfer reasons. But having them sit an entire year is silly.

Blue_by_U

September 6th, 2017 at 11:20 AM ^

was this transfer really in your best interest. The sitting out prevents kids from jumping to the next big thing at will. Schools are investing tons of time and money to land recruits and paying for their education while preparing them to play football. While I don't argue there are likely some bad coaches out there...i'd bet there are far more asshole kids/parents who would simply take advantage of that opportunity to steal players/promote transfers at will. Those who think this is OK...wait until OSU and slimey Urbs takes full advantage on a Michigan recruit...it will be pitch forks and torches. Bama will simply watch for the Jordan Lewis types that slipped through, and once they prove themselves the big program will suck them up.

 

with my own student athletes entering their Junior year...I encourage them to find a SCHOOL not a sports program that benefits them most. If the UNIVERSITY has the degree area they want and athletics is possible, fine. And there may be some give and take but too many people are so focused on the athlete and sports outcome. To reference a classic...what happened to wanting kids to PLAY SCHOOL?

Raizemage11

September 6th, 2017 at 1:58 PM ^

Your examples still do not convince me. For example, the coach that recruited you has left after signing day and you do not like the new coach.

I think there will always be edge cases where the rules are potentially misused. I would rather see these rules swing in the favor of the student than the university.

Cope

September 6th, 2017 at 2:09 PM ^

Recruiting never ends because coaches can easily recruit a player out from under a team without impunity. It creates a free agent atmosphere to college athletics with constantly fluid teams as athletes barter their way for a constantly changing better slice of the pie. This is theoretically the opposite mentality of "the team, the team, the team."

bjk

September 6th, 2017 at 5:43 PM ^

for players who are fraudently recruited by coaches who have already secretly made plans to work at another school the following year. (I believe this happened at OSU a year or two back.)

How would you feel about an NCAA rule forcing coaches to sit out a year after after leaving one school for another? Or are BS restrictions only for the politically weak and powerless? These people are playing for free. Who are we to tell them how and where they have to work to give us entertainment content for free?

1464

September 6th, 2017 at 11:21 AM ^

As a data guy, I find this sort of concern both valid and EASILY FUCKING SOLVEABLE.

Problem:  Rule is unfair to students.  If their coach leaves during their sophomore year or they are not able to get off the bench, they are forced to sit out a year to better their situation.

Problem: If rule is changed, students can transfer because they don't like the new jersey sponsor, or because their team lost 3 games the previous year and they don't like it.

Solution: Conditional logic.  It's not hard.  Allow a student to transfer without penalty if either of the conditions is met:

- Head coach, respective coordinator, or position coach leaves the school.

- Student is not played at their listed position in more than 3 games in the previous year.

Any other reasoning is still subject to a one year time-out.  Why is this hard?  Why is it all or nothing?

 

 

The SAME SHIT applies to recruiting.

Problem: Coach leaves after NLI day for a different program.

Problem: Coach promises ON OFFER LETTER that the student will be the only person in that position to be signed in this class.

Problem: Students are not able to 'hard' commit to a school until signing day.

Problem: Schools can remove an offer at any point, for any reason.

Solution: Student can commit at any point, solidifying a position in the class.  Student MAY ONLY decommit and rip up NLI if any of the following conditions are met: 

- Head coach, respective coordinator, or position coach leaves the school.

- Another student is signed at the position after being promised that this would not happen.

- Once a student signs, they can only be released by the school if they fail to qualify academically, or if they suffer a career ending injury.

Gameboy

September 6th, 2017 at 11:28 AM ^

Why?

I could have switched to any school for any reason. Why should that option not be available for anyone without penalty? These are not pros. I don't know why anyone around here should have any say what a person can or cannot do just because it makes their viewing of sports a little less pleasant. 

What exactly is wrong with kids switching school for the flimsiest of reasons? This is a free country last time I checked.

bhughes81

September 6th, 2017 at 11:56 AM ^

i'm all for it. Take all the really good players that want to play for Michigan AND are being recruited by Ohio State. Have them all sign with OSU, using up all of their eligible scholarships for the year. After all players are signed to schools, transfer to Michigan and leave OSU reeling.

NowTameInThe603

September 6th, 2017 at 11:57 AM ^

because college football is ascending towards a cliff. This would be one step closer.

Imagine small school stars AND stars on bad power 5 teams joining what would become 10 dynasty teams. It would be all-star football.

Example: Khalil Mack transfering from buffalo to alabama for his SR year.

 

 

I agree with the stipulations listed above. Great and fair system.

vablue

September 6th, 2017 at 12:12 PM ^

It is a free country and they can transfer if they choose too. If they want to play football, they have to wait a year, that is part of the decision and rules. When I was a student, if I wanted to transfer I could but not all of my credits would transfer and chances are it would take me at least another semester or two in order to graduate. I could transfer, but there were rules. There are rules to everything we do in life, I can drive anytime I want but I have to stay in the speed limit. That does not make it less of a free country.

crg

September 6th, 2017 at 12:33 PM ^

There is nothing preventing the athletes from transferring schools - only if they want to be a scholarship athlete are restrictions in place. It is fair to put some limits in place if the university paid them (via tuition, room/board, books, tutoring, etc.) to be there.

Red is Blue

September 6th, 2017 at 1:12 PM ^

Generally makes sense, but I could see a couple getting sticky:

"Student is not played at their listed position in more than 3 games in the previous year".  What keeps a coach from playing them only one play?  A power house team will likely have multiple blowout wins/games well in hand before the last play or a bad team might have no chance at some point.  Also, what keeps the team from listing them at a position they don't want?

 

"Another student is signed at the position after being promised that this would not happen."  I suppose this could be documented, but if the student is not careful, they could easily be caught.  Eg, team agrees to sign no more defensive backs, but the adds "athletes" that are really DBs.

 

 

 

 

1464

September 6th, 2017 at 3:25 PM ^

Agreed.  Those were just quick suggestions and would require a bit more thinking.

On the first - that would be something a coach could do to reserve them, but it would look really bad if it were just a play.  Maybe a series.  Maybe adjust the number of games?  Maybe make it 100 plays all year?  I don't know.  They could also stipulate that the player can leave to pursue a different official position.

On the second - you'd essentially have to do away with 'athlete'.  You'd also have to require some percentage of adherence to the original listed position.  For instance - a team must maintain 80% position adherence from recruiting or face discipline.  They already do it in academics.

Mike Damone

September 6th, 2017 at 12:15 PM ^

he should be able to play where he wants w no penalty.  I love this rule change - puts the burden on schools to recruit the right kids for their programs, and confirms the players that stay there want to be there.  Also puts more burden on the schools and coaches to not "embellish" during the recruiting process.

Yes, the players are rewarded with a free education.  But the schools are making millions off the players - they are not giving the free education out of the goodness of their hearts.

Unlike other professional sports, a sophomore or true junior cannot go pro and earn a living at something they excel at.  And I dont see the big time head coaches that leave their programs high and dry having to take a year off.  

Let the kid play where he wants...

crg

September 6th, 2017 at 12:38 PM ^

Only some schools are making "millions" of dollars off the performance of the students (even though the schools pr9vided the facilities, equipment, travel, training, exposure in addition to tuition, room, board, books, tutoring etc.), while the majority of D1 schools are barely making anything.

crg

September 8th, 2017 at 4:13 PM ^

You do realize that "most D-I schools" includes the mid to small FBS and all the FCS programs, which outnumber the P5 programs almost 3 to 1. I highly doubt many of the FCS programs (football only) are making millions in revenue, let alone anywhere near that in "profit" (since these are mostly non-profit institutions anyway).

Kevin13

September 6th, 2017 at 1:27 PM ^

and could open up a very slippery slope of athletes almost becoming free agents. Kids are recruited for a long time and have tons of opportuninties to know everything there is about a school and coach before signing a LOI.  I think there are already some good measures in place for kids to transfer for medical or family reasons, but just allow them to start doing it..... No.... don't care for it a commitment is suppose to mean long term, not just until the grass is greener somewhere else.

FreddieMercuryHayes

September 6th, 2017 at 11:06 AM ^

I'm very much on the side of the athletes, but man, this would totally make the gap between the have and have nots bigger. Find a diamond in the rough? Well too bad, Bama wants him for his junior year. I mean UM wild probably benefit because they could treat the smaller B1G schools and MAC like farm teams, but really screws the smaller schools on this. I'm guessing smaller schools wouldn't slow the change.

HimJarbaugh

September 6th, 2017 at 11:46 AM ^

OTOH, scholarship limits would mean that those smaller schools would have more to go around and the bigger schools would have fewer to give to top prospects. If anything, I can see this leading to MORE talent going to smaller and mid-tier schools since the OSUs and Alabamas will use more of those scholarships on 3rd and 4th year players.