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!

NCAA Convention

Buffnik said:
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.
Click to expand...
I mentioned that if the coach leaves I'm fine with the athlete being able to transfer. Fair is fair.

My fear is that some of the "have not" programs will never be able to turn things around because any program changing players they get will be poached by the blue bloods every off season. Additionally, I see this negatively impacting the student experience because they're not committing to a school for more than a year. That would obviously limit their involvement and commitment.
 
Gary Indiana said:
I mentioned that if the coach leaves I'm fine with the athlete being able to transfer. Fair is fair.

My fear is that some of the "have not" programs will never be able to turn things around because any program changing players they get will be poached by the blue bloods every off season. Additionally, I see this negatively impacting the student experience because they're not committing to a school for more than a year. That would obviously limit their involvement and commitment.
Click to expand...
The impact on the student is on them. They're adults. They have advisors and family. They don't need a coach to be in control of them in this way.

In terms of the "have not" programs, there's as much good as bad. Lots of guys who get buried on depth charts at blue blood programs or recruited over who would love a chance to start and actually get to play on Saturdays. It's going to hurt depth at the blue bloods while programs that lose are going to get hurt by losing their stars. That balances and probably favors the "have nots".
 
Buffnik said:
The impact on the student is on them. They're adults. They have advisors and family. They don't need a coach to be in control of them in this way.

In terms of the "have not" programs, there's as much good as bad. Lots of guys who get buried on depth charts at blue blood programs or recruited over who would love a chance to start and actually get to play on Saturdays. It's going to hurt depth at the blue bloods while programs that lose are going to get hurt by losing their stars. That balances and probably favors the "have nots".
Click to expand...
How does swapping one program's best players for another program's worst, balance the playing field?
 
So players would still sit out a year, conferences would still have their transfer rules but coaches can't restrict a players movement? Sounds like a good plan to me.
 
onealcd said:
So players would still sit out a year, conferences would still have their transfer rules but coaches can't restrict a players movement? Sounds like a good plan to me.
Click to expand...
If this is the case then I am fine with the rule and it was my misunderstanding. I was under the impression this was just a free pass for players to leave one school and immediately play for another.
 
Gary Indiana said:
If this is the case then I am fine with the rule and it was my misunderstanding. I was under the impression this was just a free pass for players to leave one school and immediately play for another.
Click to expand...
I hope not, I read it as a way to get rid of the silly restrictions coaches put on players about where they can go. This has to do with all sports as I remember the AD/Coach at KSU getting in some deep **** for restricting a girls bball transfer a couple years back.
 
Gary Indiana said:
How does swapping one program's best players for another program's worst, balance the playing field?
Click to expand...
If I'm the coach at Purdue, I'd take a 3rd year guy from Ohio State's OL who lost his starting job to a blue chip recruit in a heartbeat. Those are the kind of guys who are going to be available. And there are a lot more of them than there are star starters at Purdue who want to leave their teammates and situation to play for Ohio State instead.
 
Allowing kids to transfer after a coaching change is also a recipe for disaster, unless you allow teams coming off a coaching change to sign more than "25" recruits per cycle.
 
manhattanbuf said:
I am surprised no one brought up the best solution: after a coach accepts a new job without being fired by his last school, he must wait one full season before he can coach the new team.
Click to expand...
Unless his contract has expired. I'd expect that would be popular with coaches because they seem to place so much value on loyalty, perseverance and respect for what a university has invested into your development. ;)
 
Would this mean preseason college football magazines become worthless?
 
Gary Indiana said:
How does swapping one program's best players for another program's worst, balance the playing field?
Click to expand...

I can see where @Buffnik is coming from. The third string junior QB at USC who is never going to see the field there and the fourth team OLB at Michigan who is a Soph but has been recruited over are still better players than the starters at those positions at Indiana or Kansas.

I think it will open up a secondary recruiting market though, even though it is under the table. The top programs will benefit by cherry picking the stars from lower programs (Chido from CU as an example) and bottom feeders filling up on "rejects" who have been pushed out of top programs. The losers in the deal will be the mid-level programs who will lose more star players and who are less interested in somebody elses 4th stringer.
 
MtnBuff said:
I can see where @Buffnik is coming from. The third string junior QB at USC who is never going to see the field there and the fourth team OLB at Michigan who is a Soph but has been recruited over are still better players than the starters at those positions at Indiana or Kansas.

I think it will open up a secondary recruiting market though, even though it is under the table. The top programs will benefit by cherry picking the stars from lower programs (Chido from CU as an example) and bottom feeders filling up on "rejects" who have been pushed out of top programs. The losers in the deal will be the mid-level programs who will lose more star players and who are less interested in somebody elses 4th stringer.
Click to expand...
Right. So the lower tier teams can pick from the scrap heap of the big dogs, while those same blessed few teams can pull the MVPs off from the have nots. Sounds like half the P5 will be a feeder program for the top 10. Like the Red Sox calling up an ace pitcher from AAA and reassigning someone who couldn’t hack it in the bigs.

How does this even the playing field again?
 
If you go coaching change, NCAA investigation, the grad transfer rule, and lack of playing time as justification to transfer..........I'm alright with it. If you're allowing guys to transfer wherever they want whenever they want.........no.
 
Gary Indiana said:
Right. So the lower tier teams can pick from the scrap heap of the big dogs, while those same blessed few teams can pull the MVPs off from the have nots. Sounds like half the P5 will be a feeder program for the top 10. Like the Red Sox calling up an ace pitcher from AAA and reassigning someone who couldn’t hack it in the bigs.

How does this even the playing field again?
Click to expand...

It does not even the playing field. The lower tier teams are getting guys who can't play.
 
Maybe the team accepting the transfer has to pay a "transfer fee" to the school losing the player. That fee should be a payment at 200% of the cost of scholarships and cost of attendance for the entire career of the player transferring away.

For bottom feeder programs this could be a money-maker!
 
The irony in this thread of people who talk about hating the NFL and pro sports in general, but being cool with essentially opening up college athletics to free agency. The only difference is that the NFL can lock players into contracts and not worry about losing guys each year, while college coaches are going to have to not only recruit high school kids, but also make sure they keep recruiting and stroking the egos of the players already on the team.
 
Looking forward to what the basketball comission comes up with.
 
Jalapeno said:
Looking forward to what the basketball comission comes up with.
Click to expand...
The big move was on grad transfers and it's receiving blowback. They made it so that if a school wants to take a grad transfer, the school has to make a real academic scholarship commitment to pay for the full 2 years of grad school in order to get the player for a year. We'll see if that curbs some of the rent-a-player stuff that has been going on. I would bet that Tad has looked at it along with the tuition costs for CU graduate programs and said that it's a better use of his resources to recruit JUCOs or traditional transfers who will give him 2 or 3 years on the court for the same price or lower.
 
Buffnik said:
The big move was on grad transfers and it's receiving blowback. They made it so that if a school wants to take a grad transfer, the school has to make a real academic scholarship commitment to pay for the full 2 years of grad school in order to get the player for a year. We'll see if that curbs some of the rent-a-player stuff that has been going on. I would bet that Tad has looked at it along with the tuition costs for CU graduate programs and said that it's a better use of his resources to recruit JUCOs or traditional transfers who will give him 2 or 3 years on the court for the same price or lower.
Click to expand...
I think that's the best case scenario for grad transfers. Many times grad transfers are not bound for the pros. Yes, you will see players that do go pro in their respected sport, but the majority will not. If a school wants them, you better provide them the resources to earn their masters degree in two years. You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk? To me this is like the four year guaranteed scholarships that we now see in many conferences. I am not positive if the SEC or ACC ever jumped on board.
 
http://www.ncaa.org/governance/commission-college-basketball

Some impressive names on that commission that would be pretty aware of what was going on when they were in their positions of authority at those respective schools.

I'm interested to see how the NCAA deals with sponsorship deals which ended Jeremy Bloom's career at CU. Perhaps this wasn't a good time to tackle the transfer rule until that sponsorship issue has been sorted out first.
 
TSchekler said:
The irony in this thread of people who talk about hating the NFL and pro sports in general, but being cool with essentially opening up college athletics to free agency. The only difference is that the NFL can lock players into contracts and not worry about losing guys each year, while college coaches are going to have to not only recruit high school kids, but also make sure they keep recruiting and stroking the egos of the players already on the team.
Click to expand...

Once upon a time there was no cap in the number of scholarships. That made certain schools jugernauts where they were stuffed to the gills and had guys that couldnt make the 3 deep but probably would have been starters anywhere else. Think Notre Dame, Alabama, Penn State, Nebraska.

Then in 1972 Congress Passed Title IX and the NCAA capped scholarhships at 105 forcing schools to have to start to share the wealth. Ara Parseghian retired just two years later. In 1978 scholarships were reduced to ninety five. Paul Bryant retired within four years of that. Scholarships were reduced again in 1992 to eighty five. Tom Osborne retired just five years later.

I like the idea of a kid being at Alabama having options if he cant start. I like the idea of it being harder for a school to stay dominant.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Once upon a time there was no cap in the number of scholarships. That made certain schools jugernauts where they were stuffed to the gills and had guys that couldnt make the 3 deep but probably would have been starters anywhere else. Think Notre Dame, Alabama, Penn State, Nebraska.

Then in 1972 Congress Passed Title IX and the NCAA capped scholarhships at 105 forcing schools to have to start to share the wealth. Ara Parseghian retired just two years later. In 1978 scholarships were reduced to ninety five. Paul Bryant retired within four years of that. Scholarships were reduced again in 1992 to eighty five. Tom Osborne retired just five years later.

I like the idea of a kid being at Alabama having options if he cant start. I like the idea of it being harder for a school to stay dominant.
Click to expand...
I’m all for that as well, but I don’t see how this would accomplish that.
 
Cutting the number of football scholarships would help the competitive balance. 1978 saw the reduction to 95 scholarships then in 1992 it went down to the current 85. Given Alabama's dominance, it's a good time to cut the number of football players a team can have on its roster which is 105 down to 85 players and cut the number of scholarships down to 70 or even 65. FCS is at 63 scholarships and could go down to 50 but some conferences are non scholarship as well.

A lot of FBS schools don't have men's soccer and those football scholarship cuts would allow those schools to add men's soccer if they needed to keep those cut scholarships on the men's side for Title IX reasons. Men's lacrosse (12.6) has similar numbers as men's soccer (14) as well. Due to litigation and insurance risks, those cuts to football might happen sooner than later.
 
[NCAA] – In addition to the recruiting model, the Council eliminated restrictions on the sale of alcohol at Division I championships. The decision comes nearly two years after a pilot program that allowed alcohol sales in general seating at the College World Series and Women’s College World Series expanded to include the Football Championship Subdivision’s championship game, wrestling, men’s lacrosse championships in all three divisions, men’s ice hockey and women’s volleyball.
Click to expand...
 
The only reason they aren't getting rid of the restrictions completely is to avoid an up roar.

Today: "Well, alcohol is already sold at other championships, why would it be a big deal for football championships?"

Two years from now: "Well, alcohol is already sold at football championships and basketball regular season games, why is it a big deal to sell alcohol at regular season football games?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top