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!
NCAA Convention
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Do not support even though it would likely help CU more than hurt it. Newman comes to mind as a guy who seemed to be right on the edge of transferring but probably stayed to avoid losing a year. Historically, we seem to have more guys transfer in than transfer out.
Not even. The elites would cherry pick teams trying to rebuild. Would hurt us.
I need a corner. That Awuzie guy looks pretty good on a Bad team.... He gone.
Last edited:
The biggest issue is it would make coaching transitions nearly impossible to go through. Not only do you have to fill a recruiting class with essentially no time but you then have kids transfer out and could be in a position where you can't even offer enough scholarships to fill your spots.
Isn’t a transfer contingent on the current schools approval?
Today, a student athlete interested in transferring, must obtain a "permission to contact" letter from his/her current school. The prevailing norm on this is that schools will provide this for most schools, while holding back only a few possible destinations (i.e. they are on the near term schedule).
If a student is not granted that PTC, he can appeal. Here's an excerpt on that process:
So in effect, CU would have limited ability to block transfers to schools if a kid can cite reasons such as "I want to be closer to home". If Home is LA or TX, that opens up a ton of possibilities. CU would likely (in practice) only block schools on the schedule in the next 1-2 years. Such blockage is frowned upon, for FTC like reasons. Having a kid sit out a year is something the NCAA is worried about being challenged on. Without it, any hope of competitive balance disappears.
My gut reaction is that this would be awful. As to how it would effect CU? No clue. It’d probably be a mixed bag. I’m one who believes commitment is an important quality. Therefore, the only scenario I could see where I’d agree with a kid switching schools with no penalty would be after a coaching change. And I’m not sure I’d even agree with that.
It could really impact recruiting. Say a team is set at a position and doesn’t emphasize that position in a recruiting cycle then, bam, your player you were counting on leaves. Or what if you fill your class in February then a couple of guys you were counting on tell you in April that they aren’t coming back?
It could really impact recruiting. Say a team is set at a position and doesn’t emphasize that position in a recruiting cycle then, bam, your player you were counting on leaves. Or what if you fill your class in February then a couple of guys you were counting on tell you in April that they aren’t coming back?
But at the same time anyone at those same programs that is not starting and feels he should and could somewhere else could also hit the door.
That's a point I haven't considered much, being a fan of a have not.
So we'd have total chaos? No thanks!
I welcome chaos. The system is currently too skewed towards a few teams and coaches.
I bet we see a lot more playing time for more players and redshirts being used pretty much for injury.
And watch out when a favorite coach is fired.
Pretty much chaos.
Among the things the NCAA will consider are the following:
Allow students who meet specific, high-achieving academic benchmarks to play immediately after the first time they transfer during their college experience.
Allow prospective student-athletes who have signed a National Letter of Intent to transfer and play immediately if a head coach leaves the school of the student’s choice, as well as under other exceptions already in the rulebook. Because the Collegiate Commissioners Association manages the NLI, this idea would be referred to the CCA for consideration.
BuffNut
Well-Known Member
If a coach leaves that players like I do not think they will transfer too much more than do now. Sure the coach is a big reason guys committ, even though should commit to the school, but not every player wants to uproot if they have made friends, let girls, chose even partly for the school and love it. There is a lot each guy needs to weigh.
Unless the new guy means a system change, I don't think it will be a big change to allow this because most guys won't transfer. But if I was a FB or TE in a Harbaugh type system and the new coach was bringing in the Air Raid, I'd want out (and I'd think the program would want my scholarship off the books). I shouldn't have to sit out a year for transferring under those circumstances.
Terrible idea. The teams that would benefit most are those who are anointed to the Top 10 before the season starts & are difficult to dislodge anyway.
ScottyBuff
Well-Known Member
I am in favor of allowing more transfers without the 1-year penalty. Mostly due to coaching changes, program sanctions (like at Ole Miss, Baylor, etc), and other behind-the-scenes reasons that would make a situation intolerable for a student (harassment from coaches, other players) or an academic environment that they cannot measure up to.
What if the school that lost a transferring player gets a temporary increase in the number of scholarships they are allowed to offer for the remainder of the eligibility clock they lost? If the school is not under any scholarship reductions, either self-imposed, or from the NCAA.
For example: A student entering their red-shirt sophomore still has 3 years left on their eligibility and they want to transfer from Alabama to CU. CU is not on Bama's schedule in the next 3 years, so they grant it and now they get to offer up to 86 scholarships for the next 3 years. They are down a player but now have 2 spots to try and fill the void.
Maybe the transferring student can only be awarded a partial financial scholarship for 1 year (or even require him to be a "walk-on") but still be eligible to play; while the school must count a full scholarship towards their limit. Not sure on this because it could create more "under the table" influence from boosters.
I think there are situations that will get abused under the current system and under any new system; the bottom line is that the schools and coaches have an extremely dominant position over the athletes in these situations and leveling the playing field means that promises made during recruiting that go unfulfilled would now have ramifications against the school or the coach.
What if the school that lost a transferring player gets a temporary increase in the number of scholarships they are allowed to offer for the remainder of the eligibility clock they lost? If the school is not under any scholarship reductions, either self-imposed, or from the NCAA.
For example: A student entering their red-shirt sophomore still has 3 years left on their eligibility and they want to transfer from Alabama to CU. CU is not on Bama's schedule in the next 3 years, so they grant it and now they get to offer up to 86 scholarships for the next 3 years. They are down a player but now have 2 spots to try and fill the void.
Maybe the transferring student can only be awarded a partial financial scholarship for 1 year (or even require him to be a "walk-on") but still be eligible to play; while the school must count a full scholarship towards their limit. Not sure on this because it could create more "under the table" influence from boosters.
I think there are situations that will get abused under the current system and under any new system; the bottom line is that the schools and coaches have an extremely dominant position over the athletes in these situations and leveling the playing field means that promises made during recruiting that go unfulfilled would now have ramifications against the school or the coach.
The new game would become behind the scenes poaching. “Man, I really like that lineman at Colorado, have someone find out if he’d have any interest in transferring.” Of course, such a thing would have to be done with extreme stealth. But it would happen.
BuffHerd
Club Member
I would see it just the opposite. Some programs sign large high profile classes every year (because they can) and then purge/transfer out kids that don’t live up to the hype, only to replace them with another high star ranked player once the spot is vacanted. This keeps the school in the spotlight of recruiting class rankings with big, highly rated classes.
There should be a penalty for the transfer out of a kid. Loss of a scholarship until the player is eligible to compete, for example. Don’t reward the behavior.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/247spo...ma-transfers-fared-last-season--113652124/Amp
Probably best just to leave the schools at their scholarship limits. Could see penalizing a school after the pass a certain number of transfers out. This would penalize the schools that push kids out on a regular basis to make room.
I can see letting a kid transfer if the head coach leaves within the first year or two after they sign. Also for situations like Baylor, Penn State, etc. kids should be able to leave without penalty.
Don't like making it open season though for top programs to go after the few quality upperclassmen that weaker programs have found and developed.
I could see, if the school agrees to let the player go without requiring him/her to sit out a year, possibly allowing it. But there has to be some protection for the university. They invest a ton in these kids. But I don't agree that a kid should be allowed to just leave because he/she wants to.
I'm cool with that.
I would be ok with that if it's under certain circumstances (coach leaves, family matters), but I don't want players to essentially become free agents. I don't think that would be good for the game or the student athlete.
What's the harm?
I see the harm to the student athlete of having his options artificially limited by a coach. I see the unfairness that any other student can transfer wherever and any coach can leave for whatever job while a student-athlete is restricted and penalized if he wants to go somewhere else.
I do get that programs invest resources in a player and that it sucks when it turns out that was a bad investment because the player decides to leave, but I can accept that as a risk a program needs to take and a cost of doing business.
But will boosters get their cash back if a player leaves? Still needs to be ironed out, imo.