Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Breaking: NCAA may vote to allow all transfers to play immediately

Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member

In a potentially paradigm-shifting proposal, the NCAA members may vote to allow all Division-I transfers to be eligible to play immediately. The only potential restrictions are that student-athletes would be asked to meet a minimum GPA, in order to transfer immediately, and that any additional transfer would require the student-athletes to sit out a full year. The proposal, which is being solicited among members for feedback, is gaining increased traction in recent weeks, a source confirms.

Within recent weeks, it has become more clear that the latter option of immediate eligibility for transfers who achieve a minimum GPA is the one gaining traction amongst members. The proposal must be completed by November 1. The members of the Transfer Working Group will continue to seek feedback from fellow coaches, directors, commissioners and student-athletes in the days ahead, but it is becoming more likely that the proposal will be voted upon next April with the possibility of this going into effect as early as the 2018-19 calendar. The uniformity of applying the same rules across all sports would potentially streamline the transfer process.
 
This will make the offseason ****ing nuts. And will further gut the G5 since any good player for them will be poached to fill spots for P5 programs.

Sweet.
 
interested in hearing arguments for and against here. I would think that it would lead to a lot more transferring which I think I'm generally against but not sure why really.
 
So at what point will coaches be able to reach out to players on other teams to sell them on transferring? Can players transfer mid-season or only after the school year? Would like to know what kind of regulations there might be in place or if it truly will become a free-for-all.
 
Next thing you know, players will want to be paid. Oh wait.

CFB continues its slide towards professionalism. I am not sure how I feel about that. I think the players get less than what they should, but as a fan, if I wanted to see a pro game, there is the NFL, which I have very little interest in....
 
TSchekler said:
So at what point will coaches be able to reach out to players on other teams to sell them on transferring? Can players transfer mid-season or only after the school year? Would like to know what kind of regulations there might be in place or if it truly will become a free-for-all.
Click to expand...
Transfers during the season, that would be interesting.....
 
I don't think they would allow tampering since they don't allow that now. What goes on is that there are 7on7 coaches or HS coaches or personal trainers that act as a go-between until the transfer paperwork is filed. The same stuff that's going on today will continue to go on and probably increase in activity.

I'm torn on whether I like this.

Pro: no reason to punish players whose coaches leave on them all the time but they lose eligibility if they do so

Con: I have seen in other sports that don't have a penalty year that transfers can get crazy and you'll see, for example, a volleyball player on her 3rd or 4th school during a college career. I'm not sure that serves the student-athletes or the NCAA members.
 
I like the GPA requirement. I'd like the idea more if there's a certain # of credits required as well. Maybe 2 years worth.
 
TSchekler said:
Correct. Not only do I think this creates an even larger divide between the G5 and P5 (which is fine by me), I think it could create an even larger divide between the elite P5 and the middle to bottom tier P5.
Click to expand...
Except when Johnny HS All Star, who didn't realize Bama or USC are actually 5 deep at their position and they are not moving up the depth chart like they had their entire lives.

Cuts both ways for P5, but yeah, G5 is ****ed. If they actually go through with this and with the move to limit scheduling to P5 only, G5 is pretty much done. It will be a slow death of course, but it will happen over time.
 
Last edited:
Highlander said:
Except when Johnny HS All Star, who didn't realize Bama or USC are actually 5 deep at their position and they are not moving up the depth chart like they had their entire lives.

Cuts both ways for P5, but yeah, G5 is ****ed. If they actually go through with this and with the move to limit scheduling to P5 only, G5 is pretty much done. It will be a slow depth of course, but it will happen over time.
Click to expand...
I see what you did there.
 
BuffinCali said:
Big schools will poach, after any school loses a game. This will further increase the talent gaps between the haves and have nots.
Click to expand...
Will it, though? I'd like to know how it has played out in other sports. My impression from the non revenue sports is that it works both ways. The top programs lose players who are in danger of getting recruited over. Those players benefit the programs who get them. Conversely, the top programs will pull in some star players but not very often. The thing to do to discourage too much of this is to have the rule in the conference that a Pac-12 player can't transfer to another Pac-12 program without sitting out a year. If everyone does that then it's harder. People are less likely to go somewhere unfamiliar.
 
This tends to take the 'student' out of student athlete. On the other hand, many students have legit reasons to transfer other than just the chance to play on a better team. Most know that they are not NFL prospects.

Perhaps, if there is a limit to the number of times a player can transfer. First transfer, play immediately. Second transfer under the current rules.

But overall, I don't like it and I don't understand why universities are so happy to be an NFL farm system without compensation.
 
Would make it much harder to rebuild a down program. Recruit a kid, develop him into an above average player and he goes someplace he is more likely to win.
Rinse and repeat.
 
It would be the end of any appearance of competitiveness. The big programs have a few key spots to fill each year. Go shopping at the G5 and less competitive P5 schools. While good for the player perhaps, it kills everyone but the top few. And as I've shared on here, I've experienced this first hand in women's non-revenue sports which already have this rule. My daughter benefitted as a Frosh when 60% of their starting returners left for a private school, to play their Senior year. After the daughter's staff and school had worked for 3-4 years to develop those kids.

I'd quit watching immediately.
 
How about all the benefits to rebuilding a program?

Think about CU's 2-deep from about 2009-2014. How many vets who were 3rd string at programs like Oklahoma would have made CU better while giving themselves a great opportunity to actually play, put film together for an NFL shot, etc.?

This cuts both ways.
 
The schools could always just be much more stringent in allowable schools when granting a release to players.
 
It really does work both ways in this situation. I believe in Colorado for a HS kid to transfer, they has to sit out half a year or something like that. I think that is fair, as you don't lose an entire year. Could even do a 3 game sit out or something of the sorts. Sitting out an entire year has always been a little over kill to me.
 
So long as the player has a qualifying GPA and transfers in the offseason, I am good. Coaches leave (generally in offseason); student athletes should be able to do so as well.
 
This is interesting. I'm on the fence how I feel about this. I just keep thinking about the NBA and you know some team will do it's best to build an all-star team, as if Alabama isn't already. It's a scary proposition, it helps kids who are stuck but you know schools will abuse this.
 
can-of-worms.jpg
 
Buffnik said:
Will it, though? I'd like to know how it has played out in other sports. My impression from the non revenue sports is that it works both ways. The top programs lose players who are in danger of getting recruited over. Those players benefit the programs who get them. Conversely, the top programs will pull in some star players but not very often. The thing to do to discourage too much of this is to have the rule in the conference that a Pac-12 player can't transfer to another Pac-12 program without sitting out a year. If everyone does that then it's harder. People are less likely to go somewhere unfamiliar.
Click to expand...

I agree that there should be regulations about where the player can transfer to, but that is not what was written. So if it is straight up, this will hurt mid level and below programs. An example would be, CU gets a 4* player who was originally deciding between Oklahoma, Texas, OSU and CU. CU loses game one of the season and the head coaches at OKL, TEX and OSU are speaking to the players parents by the time the broadcast has ended. "Come to our school, he will play and we don't lose". Or another scenario where a 4* player is already at Alabama and is third string. That player does not have to go across country or to a small school to get playing time. If that player is a WR and Auburn needs a WR asap due to injury and a talent gap, that player could be playing for Auburn the following week without thinking about having to transfer to Middle State Central Canyon for the blind. This also hurts a school like CU who recruits heavily in CA and TEX to stay competitive. If that player chose CU over SDSU and Sacramento State, but the player is now developed, is a stud at their position and let's say top 5 ranked USC reaches out and says come play for your home town/state team, we want you asap and you will also be playing for a National Championship this year and next. The ability to play at home will be appealing. This is a dangerous ruling for programs who do not have the base of HS talent that CA, TEX, FL and a few others have as well as for mid to lower level schools. Sure there may be the rare player who leaves Alabama to go play at Central Union CamelBack State University, but that will be a rare move indeed.
 
BuffinCali said:
I agree that there should be regulations about where the player can transfer to, but that is not what was written. So if it is straight up, this will hurt mid level and below programs. An example would be, CU gets a 4* player who was originally deciding between Oklahoma, Texas, OSU and CU. CU loses game one of the season and the head coaches at OKL, TEX and OSU are speaking to the players parents by the time the broadcast has ended. "Come to our school, he will play and we don't lose". Or another scenario where a 4* player is already at Alabama and is third string. That player does not have to go across country or to a small school to get playing time. If that player is a WR and Auburn needs a WR asap due to injury and a talent gap, that player could be playing for Auburn the following week without thinking about having to transfer to Middle State Central Canyon for the blind. This also hurts a school like CU who recruits heavily in CA and TEX to stay competitive. If that player chose CU over SDSU and Sacramento State, but the player is now developed, is a stud at their position and let's say top 5 ranked USC reaches out and says come play for your home town/state team, we want you asap and you will also be playing for a National Championship this year and next. The ability to play at home will be appealing. This is a dangerous ruling for programs who do not have the base of HS talent that CA, TEX, FL and a few others have as well as for mid to lower level schools. Sure there may be the rare player who leaves Alabama to go play at Central Union CamelBack State University, but that will be a rare move indeed.
Click to expand...
Sure. It shouldn't be during the season. The school should also maintain the right to limit where the player can transfer (i.e., don't let a coach poach his players when he leaves for a new job). And I like that they're saying that a player is only allowed to transfer once without penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top