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

I grew up with pro teams that kept the same players for years and didn't switch cities.
I grew up with colleges wanting to field the best teams possible, w/in reason.

The proposed rule sucks, but so does playing texas state and unc. it's all about winning and looking good in the media
 
Seems like a huge step, I would prefer something diffferent to make transferring without penalty easier but not all put chaos.
 
I think it has to be limited to off season moves. You have to be able to manage your curent roster in addition to recruiting (hs) efforts.

And count me in where it comes to contact and tampering rules. That could get out of hand very quickly.
 
There are already rules in place that prevent a SA from competing in a sport for a second school if they transfer mid-season. The only thing being considered is the elimination of the year in residence requirement for those sorts that still have that rule in place. I like the min GPA standard as the year in residence rule was intended to mitigate a slide in academic progress. If an SA is a good student making progress to their degree, than the YIR rule has no beneficial effect. I would say a 2.67 (B-) should be the standard.
 
In addition to a minimum GPA rule, I think there needs to be a minimum academic progress rule. Player needs to be on pace to graduate in 5 years in both the school s/he is transferring from and to.
 
I think it's interesting how many people are looking at it from a player moving to a power program perspective and not the other way around.

What about the 4* RB who was sure he'd beat out all the 5* guys at Bama, only to sit on the sidelines and get recruited over? There would be a lot more ability for those guys to move, leaving less possibility for the Alabamas and FSUs to stockpile talent.
 
Alfred91 said:
I think it's interesting how many people are looking at it from a player moving to a power program perspective and not the other way around.

What about the 4* RB who was sure he'd beat out all the 5* guys at Bama, only to sit on the sidelines and get recruited over? There would be a lot more ability for those guys to move, leaving less possibility for the Alabamas and FSUs to stockpile talent.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's possible. But before scholarship limits the big-time programs stockpiled talent. Some kids keep believing they're gonna break through (to be fair to your point, maybe they change their mind their senior year). And other know they have no future in football but just want to be on a championship team.

If this change goes through, obviously I hope you're right. I just see it as a net negative. Killing G5 programs is part of it regardless. I have no particular reason to see, as an example, Wyoming go down the ****ter (their current QB would have been snapped up real quick under this rule). I like college football across the board - and don't like every step that has increasingly made it all bout fewer and fewer teams.
 
P5's will use G5's as feeders kind of like AAA baseball....sure messes over jucos. P5's will ally themselves with smaller schools and get the cream of the crop.
 
I think this would feel a lot like soccer transfers without the transfer fees/wages. It's hard for bad teams to keep their best players, pretty much impossible to stop tampering, and bad teams (or G5 schools) best move is to take the guys who can't make it in the best teams or take the best guys from a lower division. That's actually pretty much how it would have to work out for bad teams or G5 schools to not get completely ****ed over, at the same time, it's hard to tell how common transfers would be and if it would be very uneven in this regard. Moving schools is still annoying, and we'd see how much pride in their school these guys really have.

I also think coaching changes would have a huge impact on this. Players can be as loyal to coaches as they are schools, who's to say Leavitt/Clark wouldn't have tried to bring some of their players with them when they left us for Oregon? Or Fleck commit a raid on Western Michigan when he went to Minnesota? Not saying anyone would choose to leave, but it's still a situation that would definitely happen and the only thing stopping them would be loyalty to their school.
 
Last edited:
I think the built in damper on this is scholarship limits. Schools won't be able to go crazy signing transfers. Speaking of that, what if a school loses 3 kids. How will it effect scholarships, especially if they are close to the 25 scholarship limit? One thing to remember, also, is that for every transfer a school takes, the same number of incoming freshmen scholarships will be available to the pool of recruits.
 
DBT said:
I think the built in damper on this is scholarship limits. Schools won't be able to go crazy signing transfers. Speaking of that, what if a school loses 3 kids. How will it effect scholarships, especially if they are close to the 25 scholarship limit?
Click to expand...
How is that any different than now?
 
Buffnik said:
How is that any different than now?
Click to expand...
I'm kind of spitballing. But any given year there are so many scholarships available in the pool. Right? So if, say, USC has 15 to give but take 3 transfers, then they only can give 12 to incoming freshmen. Plus, they would have to consider class balance.

Also, I'd imagine the players that would consider it ar kids not getting PT. They are going to want to transfer somewhere they can play. I'd bet the trend would be players moving from "High Tier" schools to "Low Tier" schools. Not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
DBT said:
I'm kind of spitballing. But any given year there are so many scholarships available in the pool. Right? So if, say, USC has 15 to give but take 3 transfers, then they only can give 12 to incoming freshmen. Plus, they would have to consider class balance.
Click to expand...
USC would simply tell 3 players to transfer, just like they do now when they over-sign. It would be even easier for them to do that with the rule as well.
 
DBT said:
I'm kind of spitballing. But any given year there are so many scholarships available in the pool. Right? So if, say, USC has 15 to give but take 3 transfers, then they only can give 12 to incoming freshmen. Plus, they would have to consider class balance.
Click to expand...
Again, how is that different than now? When you accept a transfer, he counts against your 85 even while sitting out. With this change, he'd count against your 85 but be able to play. So, no dead scholarships and they're moved through the program faster. I guess there might be more transfers under this rule, which would mean an adjustment on roster management from that standpoint.
 
I could support a "release" from a school for those cases where a kid isn't going to get PT, and has already used his RS year. If a coach wants to sign off on it. I'm not ever going to advocate that "rebuilding programs" become the farm teams for other programs.

If a release was allowable, make it a guideline that a kid expected to compete for the 2 deep should not expect a release, but otherwise, he should be able to expect it. And make it a one time deal. Players moving around at will, will only benefit the already strong programs.
 
Buffnik said:
Again, how is that different than now? When you accept a transfer, he counts against your 85 even while sitting out. With this change, he'd count against your 85 but be able to play. So, no dead scholarships and they're moved through the program faster. I guess there might be more transfers under this rule, which would mean an adjustment on roster management from that standpoint.
Click to expand...

There would be a giant increase in transfers.
 
More spit balling random questions and other trends here: how do you square this with 4 year scholarship offers? Maybe it goes both ways: if you're on a year to year scholarship, you can transfer freely, if you signed a four year offer, you have to sit a year?
 
Jeric said:
USC would simply tell 3 players to transfer, just like they do now when they over-sign. It would be even easier for them to do that with the rule as well.
Click to expand...
Yes. In fact, the only semblance of a level playing field we have today is that USC can't sign 150 guys per year, but only 25, and often less (Never can have more than 85). If you make free-agency possible, they will be able to constantly upgrade their mistakes and recycle their roster. It's going backwards to a time when the blue-bloods signed at will.
 
buffaholic said:
Yes. In fact, the only semblance of a level playing field we have today is that USC can't sign 150 guys per year, but only 25, and often less (Never can have more than 85). If you make free-agency possible, they will be able to constantly upgrade their mistakes and recycle their roster. It's going backwards to a time when the blue-bloods signed at will.
Click to expand...


Not only this but teams would have less reason to work to keep players on track academically. Bring in a kid who can't cut it academically, use him for a year or two and bring in a transfer to take his place.

The graduation rate issues would still be in effect but it makes keeping kids on academic track less important.
 
I've always been one who believes that the people who institute major changes, more often than not, fail to comprehend or consider the "unintended consequences." Somehow, this policy will not turn out as intended. And that brings to mind intent. What is the intent, or motive, behind this? Is the NCAA anticipating some sort of legal challenge?
 
DBT said:
I've always been one who believes that the people who institute these changes, more often than not, fail to comprehend or consider the "unintended consequences." Somehow, this policy will not turn out as intended. And that brings to mind intent. What is the intent, or motive, behind this? Is the NCAA anticipating some sort of legal challenge?
Click to expand...
Possibly.

They also have a history of this in all other sports besides basketball. Seems like the impact there hasn't been bad. And they're looking at streamlining things by having the same rules across all sports regarding when official offers can be sent, academic requirements for freshman and transfer admissions, signing days, and transfer policy.
 
Buffnik said:
Possibly.

They also have a history of this in all other sports besides basketball. Seems like the impact there hasn't been bad. And they're looking at streamlining things by having the same rules across all sports regarding when official offers can be sent, academic requirements for freshman and transfer admissions, signing days, and transfer policy.
Click to expand...

Lots of things work differently in non-revenue sports. Add in the giant profit motivation, and a free for all ensues.
 
buffaholic said:
Yes. In fact, the only semblance of a level playing field we have today is that USC can't sign 150 guys per year, but only 25, and often less (Never can have more than 85). If you make free-agency possible, they will be able to constantly upgrade their mistakes and recycle their roster. It's going backwards to a time when the blue-bloods signed at will.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I'm worried about.
 
Last edited:
How about regulating the number of transfers a program can take somehow? Or, conversely, compensating a school that loses transfers? Maybe by awarding an additional scholarship or something.
 
Pretty firmly against this. We can (and may have to) talk about about who's bearing the true risk under the current system but there just seems far too much room to exploit if we allow players to transfer without any sort of backlash.
 
MtnBuff said:
Not only this but teams would have less reason to work to keep players on track academically. Bring in a kid who can't cut it academically, use him for a year or two and bring in a transfer to take his place.

The graduation rate issues would still be in effect but it makes keeping kids on academic track less important.
Click to expand...
This is my worry too, hence wanting some sort academic progress to go along with GPA requirement.

Guy takes 1 year of 1000 level courses, gets a minimum GPA, transfers. Goes to new school, takes another year of 1000 level courses. Rinse, repeat.

Finishes 4-5 years of classes, never fails a class and actually has a reasonable GPA, but is still a solid 2-3 years away from an actual degree...
 
Education part is definitely a concern. Also, I remember the big time programs back in the day signing guys just so they wouldn't have to play against them but had better players in front of them. How true that is, Idk?
 
I don't know if you recall, but coach water bottle cut some players right in the middle of a season. One was defensive end Forrest West. No official reason given for cutting him. He transferred to No. Carolina State on full scholarship, but had to sit out a year due to transfer rules. The rules simply do not apply fairly between coaches and players. There need to be some guidelines, but right now, they favor coaches heavily.
Not saying Forrest West deserved this or that or the other thing, saying that this is an example of how the NCAA ruling makes zero sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top