Another unfair, ridiculous NCAA rule

Skipper · October 19, 2018

Here we go again, beating a dead horse and talking about another silly NCAA rule: the football player transfer rule.

Undergraduate NCAA football players are required to sit on the bench one full season if they decide to transfer to another school once the realize the original program was not a good fit.

Let’s give the NCAA some credit — they have recently created a rule allowing athletes who have played less than four games in a season to be able to transfer and play at their new school immediately.

Nevertheless, the restriction of player movement in the NCAA is completely blasphemous due to the fact that coaches can leave whenever they want with no consequences.

Florida State head football coach Willie Taggart is coaching his third team in three years. In 2016, he coached the South Florida Bulls, and in 2017 he coached the Oregon Ducks. I have no problem with Taggart’s moves over these past three seasons. He did what he thought was best for his career — but everyone should have that right to choose.

The problem, however, is that in the two programs Taggart coached before Florida State, he convinced many teenagers to commit four years of their new adult lives to play for a program he would not be a part of by the time they stepped on campus. And now, what do the players get who want to leave the program? The opportunity to sit out for a year of their “job” because of a coach who decided to leave after promising them a future at his program.

The mind-boggling issue with this scenario is that the NCAA holds 18-year-old kids more accountable than 40-plus-year-old adults. The logic in this concept is completely asinine.

View Full Article

GrandGreen · October 19, 2018

3 hours ago, Skipper said:

Here we go again, beating a dead horse and talking about another silly NCAA rule: the football player transfer rule.

Undergraduate NCAA football players are required to sit on the bench one full season if they decide to transfer to another school once the realize the original program was not a good fit.

Let’s give the NCAA some credit — they have recently created a rule allowing athletes who have played less than four games in a season to be able to transfer and play at their new school immediately.

Nevertheless, the restriction of player movement in the NCAA is completely blasphemous due to the fact that coaches can leave whenever they want with no consequences.

Florida State head football coach Willie Taggart is coaching his third team in three years. In 2016, he coached the South Florida Bulls, and in 2017 he coached the Oregon Ducks. I have no problem with Taggart’s moves over these past three seasons. He did what he thought was best for his career — but everyone should have that right to choose.

The problem, however, is that in the two programs Taggart coached before Florida State, he convinced many teenagers to commit four years of their new adult lives to play for a program he would not be a part of by the time they stepped on campus. And now, what do the players get who want to leave the program? The opportunity to sit out for a year of their “job” because of a coach who decided to leave after promising them a future at his program.

The mind-boggling issue with this scenario is that the NCAA holds 18-year-old kids more accountable than 40-plus-year-old adults. The logic in this concept is completely asinine.

View Full Article

Players sign scholarships with schools not coaches.

I don't think it is fair to players, however I think the results of letting players leave without any penalty would be disastrous particular to g5s and other lower tier schools.

It would create turnover for all levels, but the great players missed out on in recruiting by the bigs would be quickly recruited to the higher tier teams.

Just for an example, Oklahoma State comes after Fine after his first year. Bussey would be sought out by a number of P5's.

Yes, the lower level teams could get a lot of P5 castoffs, but overall this would widen the talent gap even more.

ChristopherRyanWilkes · October 19, 2018

Again, to me this rule only helps G5’s as current constructed. If you’re a stud at a G5 you’re going to be playing more than 4 games and have to sit out to transfer to a bigger school. But if you’re a bench warmer at a P5 that could start at a G5, you can transfer immediately and help that team out right away. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out for us in the off-season.

Rudy · October 19, 2018

4 hours ago, Skipper said:

Here we go again, beating a dead horse and talking about another silly NCAA rule: the football player transfer rule.

Undergraduate NCAA football players are required to sit on the bench one full season if they decide to transfer to another school once the realize the original program was not a good fit.

Let’s give the NCAA some credit — they have recently created a rule allowing athletes who have played less than four games in a season to be able to transfer and play at their new school immediately.

Nevertheless, the restriction of player movement in the NCAA is completely blasphemous due to the fact that coaches can leave whenever they want with no consequences.

Florida State head football coach Willie Taggart is coaching his third team in three years. In 2016, he coached the South Florida Bulls, and in 2017 he coached the Oregon Ducks. I have no problem with Taggart’s moves over these past three seasons. He did what he thought was best for his career — but everyone should have that right to choose.

The problem, however, is that in the two programs Taggart coached before Florida State, he convinced many teenagers to commit four years of their new adult lives to play for a program he would not be a part of by the time they stepped on campus. And now, what do the players get who want to leave the program? The opportunity to sit out for a year of their “job” because of a coach who decided to leave after promising them a future at his program.

The mind-boggling issue with this scenario is that the NCAA holds 18-year-old kids more accountable than 40-plus-year-old adults. The logic in this concept is completely asinine.

View Full Article

If you remove the transfer rule, you will have the P5 ahole programs poaching schools like NT. If you want to remove ANY chance we have at moving up, then advocate for the removal of the transfer rule.

outoftown · October 19, 2018

Who wants to watch a game where you know that the majority of the players has no loyalty to "their" team/program/university? I don't. Allow this to change as indicated in this article, and there is no reason for loyalty. Some folks need to know that they cannot just leave in order to learn what it takes to form a brotherhood. Change this and you rob CFB of its soul. It becomes the NFL, just with football that is less good.

Edited October 19, 2018 by outoftown

DentonLurker · October 20, 2018

4 hours ago, GrandGreen said:

Players sign scholarships with schools not coaches.

Legally, I agree with this statement. Practically, this is far from the truth. Coaches matter, as do those relationships, styles of play, etc.

3 hours ago, outoftown said:

Who wants to watch a game where you know that the majority of the players has no loyalty to "their" team/program/university? I don't.

But you’re okay with coaches who aren’t? My issue is there’s a higher standard for players than there is coaches.

outoftown · October 20, 2018

18 minutes ago, DentonLurker said:

But you’re okay with coaches who aren’t? My issue is there’s a higher standard for players than there is coaches.

1

Not particularly in love with coaches leaving in the middle of the night either. Show me a way that prohibits that that is legally tenable, and I am likely to be for it.

I think the solution is not to allow everyone to move however they want, but rather to force schools and coaches to honor their side of this (as in you shouldn't be able to just cut players because they are not as good as you thought they'd be). If you did restrict the coaches it would also have to be the same, i.e. that the schools can't just fire everyone all the time. Then again coaches get paid ridiculous amounts of money.

But overall I don't think you right the wrong of coaches leaving in selfish moves, by allowing the players to do the same thing. To me that sounds like an incorrect moral equivalency.

Edited October 20, 2018 by outoftown