Possible change in NCAA transfer eligibility

[Laker]

If this passes it could have a huge effect on college sports. Immediate eligibility for athletes who would transfer schools.

http://247sports.com/Article/Sources-Major-Potential-Shift-In-NCAA-Transfer-Rules-107001121

[jmufan999]

for FCS schools who heavily lean on FBS transfers every year..... you'd better figure out how to recruit, and fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheKingpin28]

How many SEC schools say "no" to this will be interesting. To a bigger extent, the P5.

I just view it as if your school cannot recruit, then you have bigger issues to worry about.

[PAllen]

I like it. Sure it will hurt some in FCS, but I never liked punishing a kid for switching schools when there are so many legitimate reasons for it. If you're worried about kids who are treating it as the minor leagues transferring between football factories, then I see that as the schools problem for not running and recruiting to the right kind of program.

[Laker]

I like it. Sure it will hurt some in FCS, but I never liked punishing a kid for switching schools when there are so many legitimate reasons for it. If you're worried about kids who are treating it as the minor leagues transferring between football factories, then I see that as the schools problem for not running and recruiting to the right kind of program.

I never liked it that coaches could move to another school (or be fired) but the athlete could not leave without penalty.

[lionsrking2]

for FCS schools who heavily lean on FBS transfers every year..... you'd better figure out how to recruit, and fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's going to hurt everybody at the FCS level. If you find an overlooked high school kid and develop them into a good player, or potential NFL prospect, he could leave for an FBS school without penalty. It happens now with grad transfers, it will get even worse if this passes. If anything, make all transfers ineligible for one year.

[TheKingpin28]

It's going to hurt everybody at the FCS level. If you find an overlooked high school kid and develop them into a good player, or potential NFL prospect, he could leave for an FBS school without penalty. It happens now with grad transfers, it will get even worse if this passes. If anything, make all transfers ineligible for one year.

Let's say a coach leaves and the player wants to follow the coach or go to a school that will run their scheme they are used to. Why should they be penalized when the coach is not?

[SU DOG]

It's going to hurt everybody at the FCS level. If you find an overlooked high school kid and develop them into a good player, or potential NFL prospect, he could leave for an FBS school without penalty. It happens now with grad transfers, it will get even worse if this passes. If anything, make all transfers ineligible for one year.

I agree with this 100% and I don't see how anyone in FCS could possibly want the change. Coaches leaving would happen a minuscule amount of times that player raids would. This would be going from sanity to insanity. Better think it through.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

This would be a disaster for the sport.

And it is bull that coaches can ignore contracts at will but let's not compound errors with more errors.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

The FCS and G5 will just become the farm system for the Power 5.

[ASU33]

The FCS and G5 will just become the farm system for the Power 5.

Pretty much

[chattownmocs]

All ESPN has to do is repeat something a couple of times and the public starts doing it for them. The whole players vs coach false equivalency, is probably the most idiotic thing that no one points. Maybe players have more restrictions because they ARE the game. Coaches aren't playing, therefore they don't have anything to do with any of the restrictions placed on players. Why in the world in the world would they be under the same restrictions. Just like during the game when the players still have to follow the rules of the sport, because they are ones plating it.


Everything is an injustice that has to be corrected, and the answer is always to ruin everyrhing. Just like theyve done with the sport itself.

[Cocky]

People should have the freedom to attend the school of their choice and play ball if offered.
Heck, I would start at a football factory then transfer to a high academic school with a high paying reputation. This way I could have my few years at the Bamas of the world and make the big money of Harvey Mudds and Tufts of the world.

[cx500d]

Let's say a coach leaves and the player wants to follow the coach or go to a school that will run their scheme they are used to. Why should they be penalized when the coach is not?

Maybe because the coach is an employee in a right to work state, whereas a player is a student at the college and not an employee, except at Northwestern. If they are going to put a GPA on this it should be 3.0 minimum, using verifiable standards for calculating GPAs, not North Carolina standards...

[cx500d]

If this passes it could have a huge effect on college sports. Immediate eligibility for athletes who would transfer schools.

http://247sports.com/Article/Sources-Major-Potential-Shift-In-NCAA-Transfer-Rules-107001121


Its interesting SDSU is pushing this. Weineke and Goeddert would be so gone under this, unless they are really there for the education.

Personally I chose NDSU because it was a smaller school with a respectable engineering department that I could continue to enjoy my athletic hobby. I could have went to University of Minnesota like my two sisters, but I doubt I would have been able to do sports AND do decent in an engineering degree.

[Bluefish845]

It really sucks when a coach withholds approval for a transfer request But I agree with Lionsrking, it will drastically hurt the FCS. It will be a case of the Rich getting Richer, the top teams will be able to stockpile players that want to transfer into a winning program if they are not happy where they are. We all know they are not guaranteed playing time. But you are on Umass as the #1 receiver and you haven't won a game in 3 years, transfer!! Plenty of teams will take you because you are talented & of course you want to go to a winning program and they will welcome you with open arms!!! Any of the top 10 FCS programs will roll out the red carpet if you have the required gpa. yippee!!!! A very dangerous precedent here. Of course any team would want him but only a few teams will actually be in the running, Certainly not My SHU or any other NEC team why go there When he could go to New Hampshire or Villanova and step on the field next year.

[TheKingpin28]

Maybe because the coach is an employee in a right to work state, whereas a player is a student at the college and not an employee, except at Northwestern. If they are going to put a GPA on this it should be 3.0 minimum, using verifiable standards for calculating GPAs, not North Carolina standards...

FCOA is practically saying some is an employee of the school. They are being paid to play. So yes, there are issues with this. All people should be held accountable for their actions, not just the athletes.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

People should have the freedom to attend the school of their choice and play ball if offered.
Heck, I would start at a football factory then transfer to a high academic school with a high paying reputation. This way I could have my few years at the Bamas of the world and make the big money of Harvey Mudds and Tufts of the world.

They do have the freedom to attend any school they can gain admission to....just not with a scholarship under NCAA rules. If you need to go to another school for someone reason you can either transfer down or sit out a year. I think the rules are perfectly reasonable.

[BearDownMU]

Yeah, if all you care about is how hard it going to be on your team with players getting poached, or bailing, etc., etc., I can see how you wouldn't like this rule change.

However, if your focus is actually what is in the best interest of the student athlete, this is a great rule change. Forget the argument about what coaches can do with their contracts, how about this: By rule, scholarships are renewable each season. There is no such thing as a 4 year scholarship. So, basically, after each season, the school/coach could unceremoniously let you know you would not be getting a scholarship the next season. You could get cut in the middle of the season to be honest, and the player is finished at that school. So, the school/coach can terminate the relationship with no damage to them whatsoever, but can the student athlete terminate the relationship without penalty? No. It's the most one-sided agreement in history. The school/coach maintains total control of the SA's fate. It's not equitable at all. There are a million reasons that are justified on why an SA might want to leave a program. What if it's just a good life decision for them? They have to get penalized to make a decision about where they want to attend college/play ball?

Yeah, I understand why schools love it. They hold just about every card in the deck.

[cx500d]

Yeah, if all you care about is how hard it going to be on your team with players getting poached, or bailing, etc., etc., I can see how you wouldn't like this rule change.

However, if your focus is actually what is in the best interest of the student athlete, this is a great rule change. Forget the argument about what coaches can do with their contracts, how about this: By rule, scholarships are renewable each season. There is no such thing as a 4 year scholarship. So, basically, after each season, the school/coach could unceremoniously let you know you would not be getting a scholarship the next season. You could get cut in the middle of the season to be honest, and the player is finished at that school. So, the school/coach can terminate the relationship with no damage to them whatsoever, but can the student athlete terminate the relationship without penalty? No. It's the most one-sided agreement in history. The school/coach maintains total control of the SA's fate. It's not equitable at all. There are a million reasons that are justified on why an SA might want to leave a program. What is it's just a good life decision for them? They have to get penalized to make a decision about where they want to attend college/play ball?

Yeah, I understand why schools love it. They hold just about every card in the deck.


I like that...Kind of what is good for the goose is also good for the gander?

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

If you are going to pass this rule, you might as well outright pay the players.

And the schools that are leaning to yes on this need to take a good long look in the mirror. Unless, you are a major elite school, this rule will wreck you. Purdue may think they are going to be able to steal G5 stars but Ohio State and Michigan are going to come calling for their stars.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

All ESPN has to do is repeat something a couple of times and the public starts doing it for them. The whole players vs coach false equivalency, is probably the most idiotic thing that no one points. Maybe players have more restrictions because they ARE the game. Coaches aren't playing, therefore they don't have anything to do with any of the restrictions placed on players. Why in the world in the world would they be under the same restrictions. Just like during the game when the players still have to follow the rules of the sport, because they are ones plating it.


Everything is an injustice that has to be corrected, and the answer is always to ruin everyrhing. Just like theyve done with the sport itself.

Reasonable take. Too bad, people are governed by emotions over reason. A couple of weeping talking heads and sportswriters are all that is needed to push this shortsighted rule under the guise of fairness.

[BearDownMU]

Reasonable take. Too bad, people are governed by emotions over reason. A couple of weeping talking heads and sportswriters are all that is needed to push this shortsighted rule under the guise of fairness.

It's not shortsighted if the primary concern is the student athlete. If the primary concern is lower level schools maybe having less talent because people leave (the horror!) and in exchange for that, we are OK with the person actually doing the playing have very little control over their own options, then, yes, I guess it's a bad rule change.

[BearDownMU]

Also, a quick question: How many of you were Div I athletes? Just curious. I was. And I'm not convinced you would start seeing these mass exoduses of players. I only know my own experience, but there is no way in hell I would have dumped my team. I actually talked to some coaches after summer leagues from other programs when I was in school that would make the occasional aside about if I ever wanted to go somewhere else, I'd be welcome.

But my blood was already orange and black at that point.

[cx500d]

Also, a quick question: How many of you were Div I athletes? Just curious. I was. And I'm not convinced you would start seeing these mass exoduses of players. I only know my own experience, but there is no way in hell I would have dumped my team. I actually talked to some coaches after summer leagues from other programs when I was in school that would make the occasional aside about if I ever wanted to go somewhere else, I'd be welcome.

But my blood was already orange and black at that point.

We were Div 2 in my day, and I laid out why I went were I did in post #15.

[bonarae]

Can the Ivies' potential recruits and the few transferees we do get be scared off by this rule? Probably. xdontknowx

[jmufan999]

It's going to hurt everybody at the FCS level. If you find an overlooked high school kid and develop them into a good player, or potential NFL prospect, he could leave for an FBS school without penalty. It happens now with grad transfers, it will get even worse if this passes. If anything, make all transfers ineligible for one year.

obviously it's going to hurt everyone, that's why i pointed out that teams that do it heavily are going to feel it even more.

[ElCid]

This is a bad idea. Bottom line is people forget what the whole purpose of being a student athlete is about. It is getting an education. You can call that naive if you want, but that is what is most important regardless. You start making players merely assets to be poached or traded by schools with less or no realistic restrictions, then you defeat the entire purpose of getting a scholastic education. Merely putting some GPA dressing on this pig doesn't make it right. We all know what some GPAs are worth anyway.

Unfortunately, what this issue would ultimately lead to is a decline in popularity, and more importantly, a decline in alumni and fan support for the sport. It has already happened a bit the last couple decades if you have been sleeping and haven't noticed. I can tell you that I would not provide any more financial or other active support if a bunch of players started jumping ship, on an apparent schedule, for other programs. Why make an investment in a student's education and experience only to have that student go somewhere else when it suits them because it was too easy? You can list a thousand hard luck stories that feed on emotion to justify this, but that does not make the concept right.

Now, we don't have a huge problem with this currently at my school, but if it became widespread (probably not at The Citadel), that would be unacceptable and my support would simply cease. However, I am sure there are many who also feel this way. Reasonable restrictions have prevented this from becoming too easy to do and therefore not widespread. In other words, I don't mind supporting our students or supporting them playing ball. I will not support a farm team mentality. That would endanger the true priority and decisions made in regard to getting a college education. The NCAA and schools would do this at their peril.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

So the NCAA wants to ruin every sport in the same way they've ruined college basketball? Horrible idea.

[lionsrking2]

Let's say a coach leaves and the player wants to follow the coach or go to a school that will run their scheme they are used to. Why should they be penalized when the coach is not?

I would have no problem making coaches sit out a year if they leave for another school prior to their contracts being fulfilled. Not sure it would be constitutional, but I would be all for it. Student-athletes aren't employees.

[bonarae]

So the NCAA wants to ruin every sport in the same way they've ruined college basketball? Horrible idea.

So is the baseball/hockey style farm system is better in the long run? xchinscratchx

[lionsrking2]

They do have the freedom to attend any school they can gain admission to....just not with a scholarship under NCAA rules. If you need to go to another school for someone reason you can either transfer down or sit out a year. I think the rules are perfectly reasonable.

This is correct. Participation in NCAA athletics is a privilege and the organization has the right to determine it's own rules as long as they don't violate someone's constitutional rights.

[kalm]

This is correct. Participation in NCAA athletics is a privilege and the organization has the right to determine it's own rules as long as they don't violate someone's constitutional rights.

Yep. Bad idea, especially for FCS.

[jmufan999]

Yep. Bad idea, especially for FCS.

by the way, i'm thinking that the reason they're proposing this is BECAUSE it's bad for FCS. in the last decade, we've seen the FBS/FCS gap shrink (at least for the G5). i'm sure FBS hates that and believes that the current transfer rule is a reason. and they're right, that's certainly a factor. so what do you do when you don't like something? just change the rule to favor the big boys as much as possible. allow players to transfer to FBS schools, keep the talent at the top, and watch the FCS/FBS gap widen again.

[walliver]

A couple of points:
Most coaches who leave schools are not violating their contracts. Well-written contracts have protections for the schools and the coaches such as buy-outs. A coach who exercises his buy-out is adhering to his contract. For example, a 5 year contract with a buyout is not really a five year commitment. Already, colleges are hiring assistant coaches who are currently high school coaches with talented sons playing - we all know that isn't a coincidence (I believe the NCAA has tightened up this recently). As it is, hiring a new coach frequently includes most assistants. With the proposed rule, hiring a coach could not only include the assistants, but also star players. The people at ECU would love to hire Mike Houston, especially if he brings his stars with him - instant successful football team.

Schools recruiting borderline players who redshirt and then breakout will have wasted a lot of time, effort and money on redshirting.

Once the big boys get involved, a lot of secret money will be passed around.

[Serpentor]

So the NCAA wants to ruin every sport in the same way they've ruined college basketball? Horrible idea.

The NCAA doesn't care about sportsmanship or equal playing fields. They want to create superteams, just like the NFL and NBA do. They want all the best players in a handful of schools so fans of those schools get never-ending highlight reels, and everyone else is reduced to being junior colleges.

[Bisonator]

The FCS and G5 will just become the farm system for the Power 5.
This. Bad idea.

If it's about education they can transfer all they want right now but this has nothing to do with education.

[DFW HOYA]

The NCAA doesn't care about sportsmanship or equal playing fields. They want to create superteams, just like the NFL and NBA do. They want all the best players in a handful of schools so fans of those schools get never-ending highlight reals, and everyone else is reduced to be junior colleges.

The "NCAA" isn't the issue. There is a committee that has been tasked with reviewing the situation and a perception that coaches can "transfer" with impunity but students can't, largely to protect the scholarship interests of places that aren't taking care of those they recruit.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-review-transfer-rules (http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1SAAC)

Plenty of representatives from this subdivision, too.

[PAllen]

If you are going to pass this rule, you might as well outright pay the players.

And the schools that are leaning to yes on this need to take a good long look in the mirror. Unless, you are a major elite school, this rule will wreck you. Purdue may think they are going to be able to steal G5 stars but Ohio State and Michigan are going to come calling for their stars.

Make your program more about the school and less about the level of football and you won't have a problem with poaching by those who have nothing to offer but a higher level of play.

[PAllen]

A couple of points:
Most coaches who leave schools are not violating their contracts. Well-written contracts have protections for the schools and the coaches such as buy-outs. A coach who exercises his buy-out is adhering to his contract. For example, a 5 year contract with a buyout is not really a five year commitment. Already, colleges are hiring assistant coaches who are currently high school coaches with talented sons playing - we all know that isn't a coincidence (I believe the NCAA has tightened up this recently). As it is, hiring a new coach frequently includes most assistants. With the proposed rule, hiring a coach could not only include the assistants, but also star players. The people at ECU would love to hire Mike Houston, especially if he brings his stars with him - instant successful football team.

Schools recruiting borderline players who redshirt and then breakout will have wasted a lot of time, effort and money on redshirting.

Once the big boys get involved, a lot of secret money will be passed around.

How many Sophomores and Juniors do you guys really think the P5 are going to take every year? They do recruit their own players out of HS you know. If you're worried about losing your star to a school like ECU, UConn, Western Michigan, Texas St., etc, then you need to work on your program and who you recruit.

[Yote 53]

Something like this already happened at South Dakota recently. We had a player that we started as a true freshman who had a breakout season. Immediately after the fall semester was over he transferred to a JUCO where he instantly received multiple P5 offers. Great deal for him, he gets to live out his dream now. My issue is that none of those schools offered him a scholarship when he came out of HS. USD was the school that gave him a scholarship, gave him a chance, started him as a true freshman, and in return he left.

Now, the coaching staff gave the move their blessing, from what I understand the other players were okay with it, and I guess he is a really good kid. That's all great, but it doesn't change the fact that you just used the university and then turned your back on them when they were the only ones who gave you a shot. This happened with the current transfer rules in place, imagine if there were no transfer rules and players could move wherever they wanted. I have a serious problem with this and agree with a previous poster, FCS will become a feeder program and I'm not interested in supporting anything like that. This will end up ruining college football.

[Professor Chaos]

I'm not on board with this since I think it would hurt the FCS but I don't think it will be as bad as some of you do. I definitely think it would hurt FBS->FCS transfers since student-athletes wouldn't have to drop down to get immediate elgibility. However, I don't think we'll see a mass exodus of elite FCS players going FBS to gain recognition/exposure. It may happen a bit more often but nothing that'll move the needle IMO.

I do think it'll pass eventually because it basically benefits every school at the FBS level.

[kalm]

Does the proposal mention in-conference transfers?

[Bisonator]

Does the proposal mention in-conference transfers?
It basically eliminates any restrictions except a minimum GPA. So players could go anywhere they want and play right away.

[chattownmocs]

I'm not on board with this since I think it would hurt the FCS but I don't think it will be as bad as some of you do. I definitely think it would hurt FBS->FCS transfers since student-athletes wouldn't have to drop down to get immediate elgibility. However, I don't think we'll see a mass exodus of elite FCS players going FBS to gain recognition/exposure. It may happen a bit more often but nothing that'll move the needle IMO.

I do think it'll pass eventually because it basically benefits every school at the FBS level.

Meh. It benefits you until you start losing your best players to better schools, or in the case of a powerhouse, you start losing your depth.

[RootinFerDukes]

Can the P5 just break away from the G5 already? How long does this BS have to keep going on for? The G5 should be competing for their own national championship along with grabbing some top end FCS teams. JMU, NDSU, Montana, Delaware etc.

[RootinFerDukes]

I'm not on board with this since I think it would hurt the FCS but I don't think it will be as bad as some of you do. I definitely think it would hurt FBS->FCS transfers since student-athletes wouldn't have to drop down to get immediate elgibility. However, I don't think we'll see a mass exodus of elite FCS players going FBS to gain recognition/exposure. It may happen a bit more often but nothing that'll move the needle IMO.

I do think it'll pass eventually because it basically benefits every school at the FBS level.

Current players on FCS squads will probably stay put, but if you think G5 schools won't go hard for JMU and NDSUs top players, you're kidding yourself. The quality and quantity of FBS to FCS transfers will also take a significant hit in future seasons as well. We'll likely only receive G5 leftovers moving forward.

[RootinFerDukes]

Something like this already happened at South Dakota recently. We had a player that we started as a true freshman who had a breakout season. Immediately after the fall semester was over he transferred to a JUCO where he instantly received multiple P5 offers. Great deal for him, he gets to live out his dream now. My issue is that none of those schools offered him a scholarship when he came out of HS. USD was the school that gave him a scholarship, gave him a chance, started him as a true freshman, and in return he left.

Now, the coaching staff gave the move their blessing, from what I understand the other players were okay with it, and I guess he is a really good kid. That's all great, but it doesn't change the fact that you just used the university and then turned your back on them when they were the only ones who gave you a shot. This happened with the current transfer rules in place, imagine if there were no transfer rules and players could move wherever they wanted. I have a serious problem with this and agree with a previous poster, FCS will become a feeder program and I'm not interested in supporting anything like that. This will end up ruining college football.

Yeah not that I care about what happens at a JUCO but you know EMCC and Last Chance U are thinking, "well ****". There goes their talent pipeline. You think any player at the FBS or FCS level is going to even consider ANY Juco moving forward? Hell no. They don't have to go to a Juco anymore, so they won't.

[Professor Chaos]

Current players on FCS squads will probably stay put, but if you think G5 schools won't go hard for JMU and NDSUs top players, you're kidding yourself. The quality and quantity of FBS to FCS transfers will also take a significant hit in future seasons as well. We'll likely only receive G5 leftovers moving forward.
I would venture to guess that a good chunk of JMU recruits, like NDSU recruits, turn down G5 offes when they initially commit. G5s aren't going to raid top FCS players... if anything this rule will allow G5 to raid the castoffs from P5 programs so, like I said, it'll hurt FCS programs that rely heavily on FBS transfers much more than it hurts the programs that don't.

Also, this won't allow schools to recruit kids currently at other schools. So the only way a kid leaves NDSU or JMU to go to a G5 school is if he seeks out those schools. I think that'll happen very rarely and the only cases it would is when a kid has someone in his ear telling him he's better than he is so he seeks a transfer thinking he's a P5 caliber player only to find out no P5 school wants him so he has to "settle" for G5.


Meh. It benefits you until you start losing your best players to better schools, or in the case of a powerhouse, you start losing your depth.
The CFB powerhouses will never lose their depth. If this rule leads to more transfers out they'll always have guys, maybe even from other P5 programs lower on the totem pole even, that'll think "I can cut it at Bama/Ohio St/etc... they just lost 2 guys at my position even". Similar to the early signing period rule that benefited every CFB program except for the ones at the very top this rule benfits every CFB program except for ones at the bottom. It'll likely pass for the same reason as the early signing period rule changed passed, it benefits more programs than it hurts.

[Bisonator]

I would venture to guess that a good chunk of JMU recruits, like NDSU recruits, turn down G5 offes when they initially commit. G5s aren't going to raid top FCS players... if anything this rule will allow G5 to raid the castoffs from P5 programs so, like I said, it'll hurt FCS programs that rely heavily on FBS transfers much more than it hurts the programs that don't.

Also, this won't allow schools to recruit kids currently at other schools. So the only way a kid leaves NDSU or JMU to go to a G5 school is if he seeks out those schools. I think that'll happen very rarely and the only cases it would is when a kid has someone in his ear telling him he's better than he is so he seeks a transfer thinking he's a P5 caliber player only to find out no P5 school wants him so he has to "settle" for G5.


The CFB powerhouses will never lose their depth. If this rule leads to more transfers out they'll always have guys, maybe even from other P5 programs lower on the totem pole even, that'll think "I can cut it at Bama/Ohio St/etc... they just lost 2 guys at my position even". Similar to the early signing period rule that benefited every CFB program except for the ones at the very top this rule benfits every CFB program except for ones at the bottom. It'll likely pass for the same reason as the early signing period rule changed passed, it benefits more programs than it hurts.
You don't think way more players like a Nick Deluca would transfer to a P5 school their junior season? I'm guessing Nebraska would love it. It's essentially going to make the G5 and FCS junior colleges for the big boys.

[UpstateBison]

I think the current system should stay as it is but allow players to transfer and play immediately if the coach leaves, fired, etc.. or the players scholarship is rescinded. I don't think this will have a big effect on FCS schools but you would, probably, have a few players leave. Think DeLuca, Weineke, Goedert, etc but they will be the exceptions. Would the 85 scholarship limit still be in place?

[Professor Chaos]

You don't think way more players like a Nick Deluca would transfer to a P5 school their junior season? I'm guessing Nebraska would love it. It's essentially going to make the G5 and FCS junior colleges for the big boys.
I don't think it would be that many. Even had this rule been already in place Nebraska couldn't recruit Nick Deluca unless he contacted them about being interested in transferring there. Maybe he would but I doubt it. He could've transferred this year as a grad transfer if he really wanted to. Besides there's still only X amount of scholarships available at the FBS level. So if they're taking FCS guys there will be have to be some dropping down (or additional FBS level recruits available) as well. NDSU isn't anywhere near the bottom of the college football food chain either so this rule would allow them to pick up kids from lower FCS and D2 programs that played above their recruited means. I don't expect much of that either. All in all, I think it would lead to an increase of intra-division transfers (FBS->FBS, FCS->FCS, etc) moreso than transfers up either from FCS to FBS or from D2 to FCS. And those intra-division transfers that would happen would be guys that are either buried on the depth chart or in some kind of personal issue at their current school (guys that today would transfer FBS->FCS or FCS->D2).

[Go Green]

And it is bull that coaches can ignore contracts at will but let's not compound errors with more errors.

The Ivy says "hi!"

http://cornellsun.com/2017/08/30/cornell-sues-former-head-football-coach-for-over-100k/

[lionsrking2]

I don't think it would be that many. Even had this rule been already in place Nebraska couldn't recruit Nick Deluca unless he contacted them about being interested in transferring there. Maybe he would but I doubt it. He could've transferred this year as a grad transfer if he really wanted to. Besides there's still only X amount of scholarships available at the FBS level. So if they're taking FCS guys there will be have to be some dropping down (or additional FBS level recruits available) as well. NDSU isn't anywhere near the bottom of the college football food chain either so this rule would allow them to pick up kids from lower FCS and D2 programs that played above their recruited means. I don't expect much of that either. All in all, I think it would lead to an increase of intra-division transfers (FBS->FBS, FCS->FCS, etc) moreso than transfers up either from FCS to FBS or from D2 to FCS. And those intra-division transfers that would happen would be guys that are either buried on the depth chart or in some kind of personal issue at their current school (guys that today would transfer FBS->FCS or FCS->D2).

There's a reason the rule is in place as it is now. It didn't just come about out of thin air. This is a terrible proposal for all of college football.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If you want a peek into an FCS future with this rule in place, take a look at the eviscerating the NEC experiences in hoops every year now.

http://www.nycbuckets.com/2017/03/the-nec-becoming-the-g-league-of-mid-majors/


Last week, the NEC lost three very promising young players in sophomore guard Nisre Zouzoua (Bryant), sophomore center Josh Nebo (Saint Francis U.), and freshman forward Braden Burke (Robert Morris). Yesterday, we learned sophomore guard/forward Isaiah Still is leaving the Colonials as well.

Zouzoua was an all-conference first team selection and led the NEC in scoring; he has already been contacted by Arizona State, Boston College, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, NC State, Rutgers and Virginia.


Nebo was the conferences defensive player of the year and averaged 2.6 blocks per game to go along with 12 points and 8.3 rebounds per contest. Rim protection is a coveted commodity at all levels of basketball, and he’s sure to draw a lot of interest.


Burke didn’t have the statistical resume of the two aforementioned players, but showed a lot of promise in his lone season at RMU. As a 6-foot-11 big with experience, he’s sure to draw interest from a mid-major program in a more “competitive” conference.


Still won’t receive the same level of interest as Zouzoua or perhaps even Nebo, but he can score the ball and has the size (mostly height) to play the wing in conferences outside of the power five.


The NEC isn’t the only mid-major that is ravaged by transfers year after year, although I’ve not compared the numbers and “impact”. It’s a systemic issue that is unlikely to change as coaches are forced to play young, incoming players to fill the holes left by departures. To be fair, not every departure is a negative, as both Zouzoua and Nebo had the talent to make a more immediate impact in the wake of players who graduated.


But is it worth even asking why these players are transferring?

Look forward to: all-conference teams being used as recruiting shortlists; a new "recruiting period" where larger programs recruit your existing undergrads; all while the schools themselves, who are ponying up to educate, room, and board these kids, and took a shot at them, get nothing tangible in return.

[DFW HOYA]

People lose sight that a lot of this transfer discussion starts from student-athletes themselves. If a marching band member left Robert Morris to play at Pitt, would we ask him or her to sit a year? How about the Sports Editor at the Brown and White--if the Daily Collegian offers him a spot on the staff, does he wait a year before he can write? Some seem to have no problem when a D-I player transfers down, but not moving up.

Per the NCAA web site:

"If you transfer from a four-year school, you may be immediately eligible to compete at your new school if you meet ALL the following conditions:

1. You are transferring to a Division II or III school, or you are transferring to a Division I school in any sport other than baseball, men's or women's basketball, football (Football Bowl Subdivision) or men’s ice hockey.

2. If you are transferring to a Division I school for any of the previously-listed sports, you may be eligible to compete immediately if you were not recruited by your original school and you have never received an athletics scholarship.


3. You are academically and athletically eligible at your previous four-year school.

4. You receive a transfer-release agreement from your previous four-year school."

[Yote 53]

If you want a peek into an FCS future with this rule in place, take a look at the eviscerating the NEC experiences in hoops every year now.

http://www.nycbuckets.com/2017/03/the-nec-becoming-the-g-league-of-mid-majors/



Look forward to: all-conference teams being used as recruiting shortlists; a new "recruiting period" where larger programs recruit your existing undergrads; all while the schools themselves, who are ponying up to educate, room, and board these kids, and took a shot at them, get nothing tangible in return.

You know how I would handle it as a coach? Every incoming freshman gets redshirted. Not a single redshirt freshman sees the field other than for special teams purposes. Sophomores would primarily be special teams or second string unless there was a severe need due to injury or if the player was just that dang good that I needed him on the field. Only juniors and seniors would play, for the most part. I would build a wall up around my program and create artificial barriers that would dictate at what point in their careers players would actually see the field. As a result I would have the most senior group of players in the conference. May not be the most talented but they would be the most senior, seasoned, and system players in the conference. It would be necessary to do this in order to keep the raiding parties away from the program. When a player has years invested in the program and they are deep into their academic pursuit of their major it is very hard to up and transfer. Not really worth it at a certain point.

This actually isn't much different than what college programs used to be like when freshman were ineligible to play, there wasn't much player movement, and upperclassmen led the teams. It used to be unheard of, and very rare, for underclassmen to play big roles on the team.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

People lose sight that a lot of this transfer discussion starts from student-athletes themselves. If a marching band member left Robert Morris to play at Pitt, would we ask him or her to sit a year? How about the Sports Editor at the Brown and White--if the Daily Collegian offers him a spot on the staff, does he wait a year before he can write? Some seem to have no problem when a D-I player transfers down, but not moving up.

Back in the late 1800s, there were no real rules governing intercollegiate sports. Many "students", or more accurately "players", were renegades, never really took classes and were able to "transfer" to whatever school they desired. Lehigh and Lafayette occasionally got these types of "transfers" (one player, after Lafayette traveled to West Virginia to play that school, quit West Virginia, got on Lafayette's train, and suited up for Lafayette the following week), but nobody was as bad about these types of players than Princeton and Penn. Penn's team had a reputation for having a team filled with 27 year old men, married with families, not taking any classes, but wearing the "P" on their chests.

This state of affairs is what broke down intercollegiate athletics in those early days as well - a debate raged on whether this was what colleges should be doing. That's where the first academic standards came from, and it started an effort that would ultimately sort-of become the NCAA (which came about after an expose came out implicating pretty much every major college football program of bribery of players and benefits above and beyond the regular students. Lehigh and Lafayette were included in the report).

Football is a different animal than student-editor of the student paper or first trombone. There aren't boosters pumping money to the Daily Collegian with the expressed consent of offering scholarships to undergrads at other institutions, and schools are not pulling millions of dollars out of the endowment because their star clarinetist transferred to Tulane.

[hengeek]

Now Delaware can take all of Richmond's best players!xlolx

[Pinnum]

Let's say a coach leaves and the player wants to follow the coach or go to a school that will run their scheme they are used to. Why should they be penalized when the coach is not?

There is a penalty in place.

It is what the buyout of the coach's contract calls for.

When athletes sign, they make a commitment that they won't compete for another school in their division and if they do, they will pay a penalty of one season where they have to sit. That is not onerous on the athlete.

Coaches are career professionals. You can't equate a coach to an athlete because a coach could be there for ten years and then leave the program. A coaching change isn't a reason to justify releasing students from the school they made a commitment to represent.

You can bet this will hurt FCS and G5 programs. It use to be that guys would go to junior college to get a free transfer. Now they can go right anywhere. Why not to G5 or FCS for a year where you get all the attention from the coaching staff as their top recruit, with a ton of one-on-one training with the staff, then look to see what national contender in a year or two is in need of your position and transfer there and play on national TV in front of millions.

Who cares about the program that invested in you?

[clawman]

Mid size FBS schools will be affected the most. Major schools will not need to recruit out of high school, just wait for kids to develop a couple of years then pluck them from well coached min size schools. The rich get richer...

[mvemjsunpx]

Football is a different animal than student-editor of the student paper or first trombone. There aren't boosters pumping money to the Daily Collegian with the expressed consent of offering scholarships to undergrads at other institutions, and schools are not pulling millions of dollars out of the endowment because their star clarinetist transferred to Tulane.

Not to mention that band members and newspaper writers aren't playing games against each other in direct competition.

The main reason to restrict transfers is to prevent a massive amount of instability and to maintain some sense of competitive balance. Without these restrictions, college sports could potentially become something like the farm/rookie leagues in baseball where the roster from year-to-year is almost entirely different. I guess the restrictions are somewhat unfair—on a superficial level anyway—to the student-athletes, but changing this policy would make college sports so lousy that most people wouldn't even remember that.

[cx500d]

Mid size FBS schools will be affected the most. Major schools will not need to recruit out of high school, just wait for kids to develop a couple of years then pluck them from well coached min size schools. The rich get richer...


Instead of one and done like the basketball schools, in football it will be one and move on. FCS will be the new JUCO's

[Sader87]

I think it depends on the school to a great extent...I just don't see many kids leaving a Princeton, Colgate etc to go play at an FBS school, particularly P5 schools. It may happen but it will be a rarity.

[Bucs2016]

Someone above said it but yes...FCS could become the FBS developmental league. Our recent OL Erik Austell came as a walk-on DE and developed into a 1st team All American OL who signed w the Denver Broncos. His senior and probably junior years he would've started at South Carolina. Same for our RB Darius Hammond, broke all our records, is in CFL now. He also would've started for S. Carolina in 2015/2016.

Under new rules....USC could have literally recruited both out of CSU. The Citadel had players in 2015 that would've started at USC. So did Coastal. This is bad for FCS. Schools could encourage players who are on the bubble to go FCS and develop for a year or two. Basically what they use JUCOs for now.

[PAllen]

Someone above said it but yes...FCS could become the FBS developmental league. Our recent OL Erik Austell came as a walk-on DE and developed into a 1st team All American OL who signed w the Denver Broncos. His senior and probably junior years he would've started at South Carolina. Same for our RB Darius Hammond, broke all our records, is in CFL now. He also would've started for S. Carolina in 2015/2016.

Under new rules....USC could have literally recruited both out of CSU. The Citadel had players in 2015 that would've started at USC. So did Coastal. This is bad for FCS. Schools could encourage players who are on the bubble to go FCS and develop for a year or two. Basically what they use JUCOs for now.

But the FCS school has to take the kid in such a situation. If you choose to offer scholarships to those types of kids, and you get burned when they jump ship for their final one or two seasons, then that's the chance you chose to take.

[ElCid]

If this happens then schools need to come up with creative ways to thwart it.

Like if a athlete is given a scholarship and they leave before they graduate, AND play at another school, they owe the scholarship $ back.

Something similar has happened in ROTC. I know when I was at school one cadet was on a Marine scholarship for all 4 years and 1 month before he graduated he got with the Army folks and switched over to the Army for a commission! They Army had to pay the Marines the entire cost of his scholarship. It has possibilities.

It might make it unpalatable to switch for athletic reasons. If the kid just switches AND does not play at the new school, no harm no foul. I know it has all sorts of legal issues, but if you made it a requirement of the original scholarship and did it correctly.....?

[Professor Chaos]

Someone above said it but yes...FCS could become the FBS developmental league. Our recent OL Erik Austell came as a walk-on DE and developed into a 1st team All American OL who signed w the Denver Broncos. His senior and probably junior years he would've started at South Carolina. Same for our RB Darius Hammond, broke all our records, is in CFL now. He also would've started for S. Carolina in 2015/2016.

Under new rules....USC could have literally recruited both out of CSU. The Citadel had players in 2015 that would've started at USC. So did Coastal. This is bad for FCS. Schools could encourage players who are on the bubble to go FCS and develop for a year or two. Basically what they use JUCOs for now.
The rules won't and never have allowed schools to recruit athletes currently enrolled at other schools unless those athletes reach out to them first. You can cynical and say "Oh, USC won't contact our players directly but they'll have ways to recruit them without officially recruiting them" but I think you'll find a lot of smaller schools very cognizant of this if this rule does pass. It'll be like the tampering crap the Lakers are dealing with in the NBA regarding Paul George's exit from Indiana.

In fact that's probably the biggest reason the NCAA itself as an organization wouldn't want this rule to pass. I think you'd see some ugly litigation between schools over transfers and how they allegedly made official contact to their destination school.

[centennial]

I think it should be possible to have a fair rule. As an example if a player has started less than 20% of games or hasn't seen more then 20% of possible reps then they should be able to transfer. Or the possiblity to franchise maybe 25% of your roster. Someone will have to think out of the box. Otherwise this isn't happening.

[Milktruck74]

I have mixed feeling about this. I transfered up and it was not because I was plucked from the D3 team I was on. I made a poor initial choice and wanted to do something different. It took some effort, but I didn't have to sit out a year. I actually had enough credits in my freshman year to transfer them to a community college and pick up 21 hours in the summer and get an AA degree and actually transfer into my FCS program without losing a year. If you graduate from your institution you can transfer, and I did...it was a loophole that few could actually take advantage of, but it is possible. There is also appeals to the NCAA and if the transfer is for family reasons and everybody is in good standing, they sometimes grant the appeal.

[Pinnum]

There is also appeals to the NCAA and if the transfer is for family reasons and everybody is in good standing, they sometimes grant the appeal.

They eliminated the hardship transfer. It was being abused.

Now the premise is that if you have a hardship that is so significant that you can't be at a certain school for a year and thus need to transfer, then you should dedicate a year to focusing on that issue and you can return to competition following that year. So it is the same transfer rule that applies to everyone. You can transfer but you need to sit a year.

Not a bad rule.

[bonarae]

Meanwhile...

The transfer rule described in the original post was shelved for now...

But blocking students destined to transfer there may become history in the next few years.

http://www.fcs.football/cfb/story.asp?i=20171004150821819532408&ref=hea&tm=&src=