Possible change to the Transfer rule
- Thread starter Poolside Knight
- Start date
This would look bad for the NCAA and the perception that the student athletes have committed to the school, instead of a coach or a scheme.
The SEC (outside of Alabama, Auburn, Vandy, Kentucky) have all changed their HC in the last 2 years (and only one is 2 years I think). It'll affect everyone.
I think recruits should be able to tie their LOI to a particular coach, but once you are at the school, taking classes, I don't think the current transfer rules are too tough.
If he is fired, yes leave without penalty. If he quits no. Not the schools fault. Just publicly bash coach to hurt his recruiting.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...antly-after-a-coaching-change-picks-up-steam/
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...antly-after-a-coaching-change-picks-up-steam/
It's weird that Iowa State is pushing this. Their coach is going to leave for a better job eventually and when he does a lot of those players will jump ship when it goes back to being the Iowa State of most years.
This could also give coaches pause when they realize that them leaving could destroy a program almost immediately.
Football, in general, seems really unstable right now. It's still making a lot of money, but the concussion issue and declining ratings, in both college and NFL, make me think we will be seeing a lot of changes to the sport and the rules surrounding it in the near future.
This could also give coaches pause when they realize that them leaving could destroy a program almost immediately.
Football, in general, seems really unstable right now. It's still making a lot of money, but the concussion issue and declining ratings, in both college and NFL, make me think we will be seeing a lot of changes to the sport and the rules surrounding it in the near future.
Maybe in 20 years the NFL and College Football are still strong as ever but there are a lot of moving parts right now that feel like the moments before a market crash after a bubble.
Big picture UCF as a University would be fine if the worst case scenario happened for the Sport. Not so much for some of these rural land grants whose local economy rely on Fall Football.
Reading the article the only thing this changes is the "blocking" of players that currently happens today. They'll still need to sit out a year, they'll just be able to do that one year on scholarship, which they can only do today if their former school releases them from their scholarship.
inconsistencies in the article.......
"I haven't heard one person against [doing away with] the notification," Ohio State Gene Smith said.
Football and basketball coaches are currently concerned about possible "free agency," allowing athletes across the board to transfer without any restriction for any reason. Men's basketball is arguably in crisis with a current transfer rate of 40 percent.
"It's a broken sport," a current Pac-12 AD told CBS Sports.
Anything still seems possible. The words "panic" and "wild, Wild West" we're tossed about by other AD types this weekend at the National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics (NACDA) mid-winter meeting in Sanibel Island, Florida.
WTF???? Very inconsistent and differing opinions on this!!!!!!!
seems to me the only significant change is ......
without restriction if their coach were fired or left for another job.....However, athletes would not be permitted to follow the departing coach to their new program.
yeah it's not real clear but if the final rule ends up being they don't have to sit out a year transferring anywhere else it could still decimate Programs even if they don't follow the coach to that specific Program. Which a week or 2 ago it was said was a possibility.
So the example being Frost leaves to Nebraska, even if Nebraska is out of question our players could transfer to FSU or USF without sitting out a year and UCF would not be able to block it. That scenario passing would not be good for UCF, Houston, or USF in the AAC.
So the example being Frost leaves to Nebraska, even if Nebraska is out of question our players could transfer to FSU or USF without sitting out a year and UCF would not be able to block it. That scenario passing would not be good for UCF, Houston, or USF in the AAC.
The article says that the one year of sitting out is only waved if they are leaving a school under a bowl ban. This only affects whether the player can be under scholarship at the new school for the year they sit out.
The only thing stopping half of the UCF team from transferring to Nebraska right now is the penalties towards their playing time and eligibility. I’m sorry, but this will completely destroy programs.
T. Hill would probably be gone if there wasn't a sit out year rule. It's still surprises me the number of players that seem to not give a crap about the University and only the Coach even after being there 2 years
I don’t think it’s that simple. Let’s be real about this. For the majority of these players, their end goal is to play in the NFL. The degree is important, more important for some, but less important for I would argue the majority. When you win with a coach, and win big like we just did, why wouldn’t you want to go with him? Especially if that style of play brings out your strengths and will help get you noticed by NFL scouts.
If not for the penalty I think a lot more players besides T Hill would be going too. These kids have four years to prove themselves.
I talked to his dad (real nice guy). Seriously doubt he would ever transfer. We talked about how great UCF is - not team.
Oh btw think Melb is trying to perma bam me from Soundoff. That’s what he is implying at least.
If by "rural land grants" you mean those established by the Morrill Land Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890, I disagree completely. (If not, please clarify what you mean by "rural land grants").
I think a bubble bursting in football would be devastating to UCF with all the university has invested (indebted) into the sport. UCF is still climbing the ladder of academic rankings and reputation. UCF's endowment is troublesome.
The Morrill Act schools are well established, 31 of the 65 P5 schools are Morrill. (While I think a bubble could burst with football, I do not see a bubble bursting for all college athletics). The Morrill schools outside P5 (and those in P5) are often the
"Flagship university" of the state. Due to longevity if nothing else, they have established academic reputations and many have enormous endowments; their research facilities are not going away. The local hotels and restaurants by the rural Morrill schools would suffer with a football implosion, but the universities will do fine. With UCF, the hotels and restaurants will be okay (because of the metroplitan area and tourism industry), but I think the university could be in for a world of hurt.
Kansas State and Mississippi State are the essence of "rural land grant", and they have the lowest endowments in P5: UCF's endowment is 1/3 their size. Yes, UCF's is growing much faster, but UCF has 100 years less of existence, development, growth, and graduates than do those schools. Maybe UCF catches them in 30 years (may take longer), but football has a CTE issue right now.
Maybe I am not understanding you completely.
Last edited:
Which is why the lions share of players stay after a coach leaves. You cant just deny the reality that some kids do commit to a coach. Always has and will happen.
I think it's not a good idea to disrupt the whole team/school if a coach quits or is fired (JMHO)
The short term good news if this passes is that Tre Nixon would be guaranteed eligible this Fall.
I think a coach that leaves should have to sit out a year. And leave the player transfer rules alone. There are already hardship waivers for extraordinary circumstances.
If this becomes a rule, colleges will change strategy of when they fire someone if they think it will cause mass exodus, meaning the likelihood of a coach leaving the school after the the signing period so that it isnt easy for anybody to find a spot elsewhere. All this will change is the blocking ability unless a coach is fired then i believe it makes the players eligible immediately from the school that fired the coach. I doubt all schools will do this, but those who fear a mass exit might. Heck i could see terms in contracts going forward, especially at g5 schools where coaches are often poached away from, where the terms dictate the coach must remain until after signing period unless amicable by school and coach or something along those lines make the buyout 10x if a coach leaves before signing day is closed.
UCFs buyout with Heupel specifically mentions coaching a bowl game. Would be interesting with the early signing day if contracts will start to be structured around that. I still think coaches will leave before signing day, but if they have to pony up buyout money at least they will feel some pain.
Yea, and i think if this rule goes forward more contracts will include something to mitigate any damages caused by rule changes. NCAA doesnt regulate the coaching contracts like they do the student athlete. We'll see soon enough if it comes to pass. I can see more G5, at least the leading top G5 teams writing in more stipulations to the contracts.
that will never happen but I think there should be more of a financial penalty.
You must have never been to UCF. Our hotels and restaurants are no where near the metropolitan area or tourism industry
yeah Bithlo is closer. They aren't going to keep the restaurants in business. Anything west of Semoran would die.
I'm not sure if it should be allowed if the coach leaves on his own free will. That is not the colleges fault.
You’re looking at it from the perspective of the college. They are looking at it from the perspective of the student athlete
The question is are they students and then athletes or athletes and then students?
He is right. Should only be used if the coach is fired. If he leaves the kids high and dry you can’t penalize school. Have the kids come out and talk negatively about him so his recruiting hurts at next stop.
I think when you see some former NFL players stating that they don't want their kids playing football that is an indication of the direction of the sport. Football is a fun game but the concussion issue is a serious problem to contend with. Maybe bubblewrap would help. lol
One no longer drives through miles of sparesness to get to UCF like when I was there. Absolutely the growth of UCF has spurred most of the development bridging the former gaps, but UCF is definitely a "suburban" campus within a major metropolitan area. The more Orlando grows, the less the area is dependent on UCF.... In contrast to rural land grant schools.
You mean east....
This rule is about players being able to be on scholarship, while they sit out the year required. In rare cases like Tre Nixon, the NCAA will allow a player to play next year.
Tre was ruled eligible back at the beginning of May
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
OT: War in Israel 🇮🇱, Iran launches attack on Israel- Latest: HoopingKnight51
-
-
