matt schick NCAA Transfer Rules could be changing

[oldguystudent]

Without putting any thought into this whatsoever, I can pretty much always come to the following conclusion:

Given: NCAA is making a rules change.

Therefore:  It will help P5 schools and disadvantage G5 schools. 

Tangential outcome:  SMU will proclaim it establishes them as a major power school. 

Edited January 18, 2018 by oldguystudent

[forevereagle]

Not sure what the outcome would be, but I think that recruiting of players currently on scholarship at another school would still be against the rules. Also, I would want to see some rules around when you don't have to sit. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

33 minutes ago, forevereagle said:

Not sure what the outcome would be, but I think that recruiting of players currently on scholarship at another school would still be against the rules. Also, I would want to see some rules around when you don't have to sit. 

There's a difference between recruiting, and "recruiting" though.

[TIgreen01]

Screw recruiting players currently on FBS rosters---the big problem this would create is when a coach gets poached/fired.  They'd either take the very best players with them, or some of those guys would immediately bail.  Think Littrell wouldn't like to take Fine with him literally ANYWHERE he would go?  There are only a handful of schools who have a QB on hand that would be ready to immediately transition and be as productive as Fine has been, or could be.  Or heck, if the relationship between Harrell and Fine is really strong, maybe the OC leaving would trigger the same thing. 

For the fired part of the equation look no further than what happened in Waco when Briles was fired.  That was for extreme circumstances, but they lost nearly an entire recruiting class when the NCAA opened up the ability to transfer to those kids that had just signed.  Imagine what would have happened with the entire roster if given the opportunity.  Now you're going to make this a common fear anytime you need to move on from a particular coach?

 

[MeanGreen_MBA]

I can see more P5 players bolting to G5 schools to get playing time.  If I am the #2 QB in (name the P5 of choice) and know I wont get to start, and am moving to (name the G5 of choice) to get a shot at starting.....osmosis baby.....move to the path of least resistance....

[HoustonEagle]

30 minutes ago, MeanGreen_MBA said:

I can see more P5 players bolting to G5 schools to get playing time.  If I am the #2 QB in (name the P5 of choice) and know I wont get to start, and am moving to (name the G5 of choice) to get a shot at starting.....osmosis baby.....move to the path of least resistance....

Numbers will be in our favor while quality will be theirs. Thus ultimately lowering the ability of G5 teams to compete with P5. I am not convinced of this but that's how I see it unfolding.   

[forevereagle]

1 hour ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

There's a difference between recruiting, and "recruiting" though.

That's a fair point, so there needs to be greater scrutiny on this if the rules change. 

There also should be looks at coaching changes and if players leave a school in bulk, then recruiting numbers should be more flexible to allow schools to recover from a mass exodus. In reality, there are only so many scholarships available in FBS, so I don't know that this type of thing is really that likely.

[El Paso Eagle]

My concern for UNT, for example, is that a player that was not that highly recruited comes on campus and lights it up (example Mason Fine). Then a P5 school that is having QB issues could try and persuade them to transfer (and yes there will be a lot of "back door" recruiting going on).

[HoustonEagle]

Adding to my above comment while I think this increases the divide between G5 and P5 it will help us against our G5 peers. Schools that are in recruiting hot beds will have more kids wanting to come back home.  That is a pretty common phenomenon.  So looking at things from that perspective we should benefit more than your Arkansas States. 

[TheColonyEagle]

47 minutes ago, TIgreen01 said:

Screw recruiting players currently on FBS rosters---the big problem this would create is when a coach gets poached/fired.  They'd either take the very best players with them, or some of those guys would immediately bail.  Think Littrell wouldn't like to take Fine with him literally ANYWHERE he would go?  There are only a handful of schools who have a QB on hand that would be ready to immediately transition and be as productive as Fine has been, or could be.  Or heck, if the relationship between Harrell and Fine is really strong, maybe the OC leaving would trigger the same thing. 

For the fired part of the equation look no further than what happened in Waco when Briles was fired.  That was for extreme circumstances, but they lost nearly an entire recruiting class when the NCAA opened up the ability to transfer to those kids that had just signed.  Imagine what would have happened with the entire roster if given the opportunity.  Now you're going to make this a common fear anytime you need to move on from a particular coach?

 

That's a good point. 

And as for Baylor.....I believe A&M Commerce's national championship team had a few Baylor transfer players on that roster. That sort of thing will virtually disappear should this go through. 

[El Paso Eagle]

5 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

That's a good point. 

And as for Baylor.....I believe A&M Commerce's national championship team had a few Baylor transfer players on that roster. That sort of thing will virtually disappear should this go through. 

Good point. FCS and the lower division will lose out on a lot of P% and G5 transfers.

I am still worried the top P5's will be poaching the really good players from G5's and other P5's

 

[southsideguy]

So if this goes through, a player has a bad day and the coach is on him he can quit and move to another team?   This will not give them a life lesson.   If a player goes to the P5 conference, the P5 team should be required to pay the lower division for the cost of the students education and other expenses,   We could have scouts from the P5 at our games and contact the player to move on up?   This is a very bad idea. Maybe if a player leaves from a lower division for P5 school he has to sit out a year.  Going down no issue and can play. Might level the field a little.  Overall this is a bad idea but it benefits P5 schools so it will go through.

[Ben Gooding]

3 hours ago, untbowler said:

basically they are making the transfer rule uniform across all sports, not sure why up in arms. It has not killed the other sports. 

Think will work out well for UNT in long run, but always remember there is a reason why a player transfers and it is not always about playing time, good and bad comes out of it.

Not sure what you mean by this? All athletes have to sit a year in the major sports. This basically means that all programs will have to re-recruit and re-recruit their stud players each and every year. Administrations and coaching staffs will have to baby their players MORE than players are already babied in this day and age. And corruption, geez, this is a basic free for all now. Bag men will be three fold out on the prowl more than ever before funneling money through back channels to get X player(s) to X school(s). Not sure how anyone could think this is a good thing by any means. If the NCAA is doing this, or even considering doing it, it's because the Powers(5) that be are insisting that they do it. And I can assure you they have their best interest in mind, not the little guy. They very well may be proposing this JUST to get our nose where our mouth already is...Under water. 

Edited January 18, 2018 by Ben Gooding

[MeanGreenTexan]

8 minutes ago, southsideguy said:

So if this goes through, a player has a bad day and the coach is on him he can quit and move to another team?   This will not give them a life lesson.   If a player goes to the P5 conference, the P5 team should be required to pay the lower division for the cost of the students education and other expenses,   We could have scouts from the P5 at our games and contact the player to move on up?   This is a very bad idea. Maybe if a player leaves from a lower division for P5 school he has to sit out a year.  Going down no issue and can play. Might level the field a little.  Overall this is a bad idea but it benefits P5 schools so it will go through.

lol.   Not quite that obvious.

I can just imagine several big12 schools recruiting coordinators sitting in Apogee at the Spring Game with their school colors on...  
"Uh, whatcha doing here fellas?"
"Oh, just watching a game!"
"See anyone you like?"
"Oh, no, no, no... just enjoying your spring game!" <furiously scribbling notes after an acrobatic catch Guyton makes>

[GMG24]

This rule will not get passed.  They've already tabled it till next year.  

 

The rule that is going to pass in March I think is the Redshirt rule.  Allowing athletes to play  in 4 games without losing their RS. 

[BTG_Fan1]

5 hours ago, Wag Tag said:

So a starter at a school is going to transfer to face stiffer competition at a P5? There are more players at the P5 Level on the bench thinking they should be playing then G5 starters thinking they should be starting at the P5 Level. If you are starting or getting playing time you are not going to transfer.

All kids think they are as good as anyone and promises are made.. Look at AM when They has the QBs transfer out.. they landed 4/5* QBs every year because they think they can beat out the other.. Heck look at UGA, they landed the top QB in back to back years.. 

if those P5 players think that, then we are not seeing that many transfers? It’s because kids to want/think they can play and will compete for the job ( Morris is an example).

[untbowler]

1 hour ago, Ben Gooding said:

Not sure what you mean by this? All athletes have to sit a year in the major sports. This basically means that all programs will have to re-recruit and re-recruit their stud players each and every year. Administrations and coaching staffs will have to baby their players MORE than players are already babied in this day and age. And corruption, geez, this is a basic free for all now. Bag men will be three fold out on the prowl more than ever before funneling money through back channels to get X player(s) to X school(s). Not sure how anyone could think this is a good thing by any means. If the NCAA is doing this, or even considering doing it, it's because the Powers(5) that be are insisting that they do it. And I can assure you they have their best interest in mind, not the little guy. They very well may be proposing this JUST to get our nose where our mouth already is...Under water. 

What I am saying is this has been the rule for years in the minor sports now it is uniform for all sports, care less about Major versus minor. 

[Ben Gooding]

1 hour ago, untbowler said:

What I am saying is this has been the rule for years in the minor sports now it is uniform for all sports, care less about Major versus minor. 

Well, it's not uniform quite yet, it's being discussed. But it's a major and significant difference for many reasons. 

[Cr1028]

7 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

But hey!   Nick Chubb just graduated.  Think Georgia, a NC contender, could use a running back like Motor?  He's only a Soph.

Maybe it WOULD work out well for NT!

You’re 100% correct. If these rules were in effect now, Motor would be playing in the SEC or ACC in the spring for his final season. No doubt about it.

[Cr1028]

1 hour ago, Ben Gooding said:

Well, it's not uniform quite yet, it's being discussed. But it's a major and significant difference for many reasons. 

Yep apparently Tech fans already joke on their board about picking up Fine and Littrell as a package deal.

[Rudy]

The only way I see this as acceptable is if schools can have absolutely no contact with a player until AFTER they announce their intention to transfer. However, since we all know the P5's are held to a different standard, the rules would not apply. 

[forevereagle]

13 hours ago, Rudy said:

The only way I see this as acceptable is if schools can have absolutely no contact with a player until AFTER they announce their intention to transfer. However, since we all know the P5's are held to a different standard, the rules would not apply. 

I believe that is the current rule.

[VideoEagle]

Yes, the college football system is rigged to benefit the P5s, especially the upper P5s. But that's always been the case. Back in the 60s, Bear Bryant would sign players he knew were never going to see the field just to keep them from potentially developing at other schools. Things haven't changed as far as the Haves being advantaged over the Havenots. 

That said, every discussion at the NCAA isn't a gigantic plot against the G5 schools. The Alabamas and Ohio States of the world simply don't spend that much time thinking about us! 

[Ben Gooding]

49 minutes ago, VideoEagle said:

Yes, the college football system is rigged to benefit the P5s, especially the upper P5s. But that's always been the case. Back in the 60s, Bear Bryant would sign players he knew were never going to see the field just to keep them from potentially developing at other schools. Things haven't changed as far as the Haves being advantaged over the Havenots. 

That said, every discussion at the NCAA isn't a gigantic plot against the G5 schools. The Alabamas and Ohio States of the world simply don't spend that much time thinking about us! 

This shouldn't just be accepted because it's always been the way it's always been. The little guy(s), in conjunction with one another, needs to puff their chest a bit. 

[southsideguy]

18 hours ago, Cr1028 said:

Yep apparently Tech fans already joke on their board about picking up Fine and Littrell as a package deal.

i thought tech had an offense they need a defense like us?