Would "Free Agency" Help or Hurt Bluebloods?

RobbieRob14RobbieRob14 Posts: 139 ✭✭✭ Junior

With the portal capturing so many players this offseason and the speculation that Fields will gain immediate eligibility, this is a fun subject.

If the NCAA does away with the "sit out a year if you transfer" rule, would it benefit or hurt the national powers?

Comments

  • ghostofuga1ghostofuga1 Posts: 1,852 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Probably "even out" the playing field. In other words, spread the elite players out as opposed to all gravitating to just a few programs....

  • DirtDawgDirtDawg Posts: 300 ✭✭✭ Junior

    I think players ought to be able to transfer without riding the pine. Coaches move to new schools, right?

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 3,978 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @DirtDawg said:
    I think players ought to be able to transfer without riding the pine. Coaches move to new schools, right?

    Never really understood this comparison.
    If a coach decides to take a job before his contract is up there is a buyout--a penalty.
    If a player decides to transfer before his contract (scholarship) is up, there is no penalty--except sitting out a season.

    If coaches were allowed to ignore contracts and move at will--without monetary or legal penalty--think of the damage that would do to the sport. College football would be chaos if players were allowed to move at will with no consequence. The current system at least discourages that while allowing players to move--if they want to pay the penalty.

  • TeddyTeddy Posts: 2,695 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Blue bloods will be the same. Players entering the portal, say a 5 star QB that’s not happy at one blue blood school, can transfer to another blue blood school.

  • WCDawgWCDawg Posts: 11,091 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Blue bloods are inbreeds, we'll never be anything but red blooded Dawgs.

  • DirtDawgDirtDawg Posts: 300 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:
    I think players ought to be able to transfer without riding the pine. Coaches move to new schools, right?

    Never really understood this comparison.
    If a coach decides to take a job before his contract is up there is a buyout--a penalty.
    If a player decides to transfer before his contract (scholarship) is up, there is no penalty--except sitting out a season.

    If coaches were allowed to ignore contracts and move at will--without monetary or legal penalty--think of the damage that would do to the sport. College football would be chaos if players were allowed to move at will with no consequence. The current system at least discourages that while allowing players to move--if they want to pay the penalty.

    I agree with you in that both players and coaches are penalized if they leave a school early. Players sit out a year; coaches pay the buy-out.

    Maybe the penalties are the problem. Coaches are allowed to begin coaching again immediately. I think players ought to have the same opportunity.

  • EricDawgs1EricDawgs1 Posts: 253 ✭✭✭ Junior

    No such a thing as blue bloods

  • RDDawgRDDawg Posts: 163 ✭✭✭ Junior

    Players have changed over the years and a lot of them have became so individualistic, much like society. When I was growing up in South Ga if a high school kid was any good he would be honored to have a chance to be a Dawg. It was the same way in Ala, Tenn ect. It use to be that a player had to had a legitimate “ hardship” to leave early for the NFL or to transfer to another school. These new rules will be exploited to the point to where in years to come you will see transfers with no sitting out period at all. It’s the way people are in employment now, no dedication it the organization, their only concern is what’s in it for me. Traditionalist will be rolling over in their grave.

  • coastaldawgcoastaldawg Posts: 1,172 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I agree with @RDDawg that it seems like we are moving to a system where kids will be able to transfer without penalty. I think this will improve parity in college football, because it will probably hurt the depth of “blue blood” schools with players transferring out if they don’t get early playing time. Would like to see a requirement that a player had to be at a school 2 years before being able to transfer without sitting out.

  • Mickey_HandMickey_Hand Posts: 750 ✭✭✭✭ Senior
    edited January 12

    It's just too many for me.
    The only thing I can say for sure is that it it will create more jobs for more Lawyers (Agents). :'( :'(

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 3,978 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited January 12

    @DirtDawg said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:
    I think players ought to be able to transfer without riding the pine. Coaches move to new schools, right?

    Never really understood this comparison.
    If a coach decides to take a job before his contract is up there is a buyout--a penalty.
    If a player decides to transfer before his contract (scholarship) is up, there is no penalty--except sitting out a season.

    If coaches were allowed to ignore contracts and move at will--without monetary or legal penalty--think of the damage that would do to the sport. College football would be chaos if players were allowed to move at will with no consequence. The current system at least discourages that while allowing players to move--if they want to pay the penalty.

    I agree with you in that both players and coaches are penalized if they leave a school early. Players sit out a year; coaches pay the buy-out.

    Maybe the penalties are the problem. Coaches are allowed to begin coaching again immediately. I think players ought to have the same opportunity.

    So you are saying there should be no penalties? People should just come and go as they please? They should be able to make agreements and break them at will? If so, why do we have laws that govern a society? They are to ensure that people are protected from the harmful actions of others. College football is, in the bigger scheme of life, just a small thing. But it is a microcosm of life in the broader society. Without rules or laws, then football would die, or be replaced by some dystopic, Mad Max at Thunderdome kind of sport.

  • donmdonm Posts: 7,808 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:
    I think players ought to be able to transfer without riding the pine. Coaches move to new schools, right?

    Never really understood this comparison.
    If a coach decides to take a job before his contract is up there is a buyout--a penalty.
    If a player decides to transfer before his contract (scholarship) is up, there is no penalty--except sitting out a season.

    If coaches were allowed to ignore contracts and move at will--without monetary or legal penalty--think of the damage that would do to the sport. College football would be chaos if players were allowed to move at will with no consequence. The current system at least discourages that while allowing players to move--if they want to pay the penalty.

    I agree with you in that both players and coaches are penalized if they leave a school early. Players sit out a year; coaches pay the buy-out.

    Maybe the penalties are the problem. Coaches are allowed to begin coaching again immediately. I think players ought to have the same opportunity.

    So you are saying there should be no penalties? People should just come and go as they please? They should be able to make agreements and break them at will? If so, why do we have laws that govern a society? They are to ensure that people are protected from the harmful actions of others. College football is, in the bigger scheme of life, just a small thing. But it is a microcosm of life in the broader society. Without rules or laws, then football would die, or be replaced by some dystopic, Mad Max at Thunderdome kind of sport.

    Two enter, only one leaves. I love it. It's kind of like MMA with dirty clothes. "ordinary" students can go from school to school with no penalties, as long as they meet certain transfer requirements. An argument can be made that athletes should have the same freedom. It's more complicated than that, I know, but freedom to move around/travel is not unimportant.

  • BengalDawgBengalDawg Posts: 78 ✭✭✭ Junior

    UGA would not suffer from this environment. Nor would any of the big time programs. You may lose depth, but you would be able to essentially go recruit from proven players if you ever have a gap.

    More of an impact in my opinion is players would be free to follow their coaches in the event that they take a new job. Imagine if Mehl Tucker could recruit from our program

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 3,978 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @donm said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:
    I think players ought to be able to transfer without riding the pine. Coaches move to new schools, right?

    Never really understood this comparison.
    If a coach decides to take a job before his contract is up there is a buyout--a penalty.
    If a player decides to transfer before his contract (scholarship) is up, there is no penalty--except sitting out a season.

    If coaches were allowed to ignore contracts and move at will--without monetary or legal penalty--think of the damage that would do to the sport. College football would be chaos if players were allowed to move at will with no consequence. The current system at least discourages that while allowing players to move--if they want to pay the penalty.

    I agree with you in that both players and coaches are penalized if they leave a school early. Players sit out a year; coaches pay the buy-out.

    Maybe the penalties are the problem. Coaches are allowed to begin coaching again immediately. I think players ought to have the same opportunity.

    So you are saying there should be no penalties? People should just come and go as they please? They should be able to make agreements and break them at will? If so, why do we have laws that govern a society? They are to ensure that people are protected from the harmful actions of others. College football is, in the bigger scheme of life, just a small thing. But it is a microcosm of life in the broader society. Without rules or laws, then football would die, or be replaced by some dystopic, Mad Max at Thunderdome kind of sport.

    Two enter, only one leaves. I love it. It's kind of like MMA with dirty clothes. "ordinary" students can go from school to school with no penalties, as long as they meet certain transfer requirements. An argument can be made that athletes should have the same freedom. It's more complicated than that, I know, but freedom to move around/travel is not unimportant.

    Thunderdome is what our world is coming to it seems. The point is, why do we have rules and laws? All of them restrict freedom.

    An ordinary student does not agree to receive a scholarship for playing a sport. He signs a contract and the penalty for breaking it is loss of scholarship or, if transferring to play football on scholarship elsewhere, he must sit a year before playing. When you sign a contract, you agree to restrict your freedom by those terms. It doesn't mean a judge somewhere won't let you off the hook, but you should have to abide by the contract.

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 3,978 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @BengalDawg said:
    UGA would not suffer from this environment. Nor would any of the big time programs. You may lose depth, but you would be able to essentially go recruit from proven players if you ever have a gap.

    More of an impact in my opinion is players would be free to follow their coaches in the event that they take a new job. Imagine if Mehl Tucker could recruit from our program

    We just did suffer in the loss of a top ranked QB and now, our TE depth has been affected as well. Unrestricted transfers could increase such losses. I agree--it would be destructive if players could follow coaches to their new jobs. Think about how 2016 might have gone if all the players who were unhappy with the coaching change could just leave without penalty. The sport is damaged by that scenario. Don't know what the answer is but it won't be unrestricted player movement without completely restructuring college football. That might not be a bad thing.

  • donmdonm Posts: 7,808 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @JayDog said:

    @donm said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:
    I think players ought to be able to transfer without riding the pine. Coaches move to new schools, right?

    Never really understood this comparison.
    If a coach decides to take a job before his contract is up there is a buyout--a penalty.
    If a player decides to transfer before his contract (scholarship) is up, there is no penalty--except sitting out a season.

    If coaches were allowed to ignore contracts and move at will--without monetary or legal penalty--think of the damage that would do to the sport. College football would be chaos if players were allowed to move at will with no consequence. The current system at least discourages that while allowing players to move--if they want to pay the penalty.

    I agree with you in that both players and coaches are penalized if they leave a school early. Players sit out a year; coaches pay the buy-out.

    Maybe the penalties are the problem. Coaches are allowed to begin coaching again immediately. I think players ought to have the same opportunity.

    So you are saying there should be no penalties? People should just come and go as they please? They should be able to make agreements and break them at will? If so, why do we have laws that govern a society? They are to ensure that people are protected from the harmful actions of others. College football is, in the bigger scheme of life, just a small thing. But it is a microcosm of life in the broader society. Without rules or laws, then football would die, or be replaced by some dystopic, Mad Max at Thunderdome kind of sport.

    Two enter, only one leaves. I love it. It's kind of like MMA with dirty clothes. "ordinary" students can go from school to school with no penalties, as long as they meet certain transfer requirements. An argument can be made that athletes should have the same freedom. It's more complicated than that, I know, but freedom to move around/travel is not unimportant.

    Thunderdome is what our world is coming to it seems. The point is, why do we have rules and laws? All of them restrict freedom.

    An ordinary student does not agree to receive a scholarship for playing a sport. He signs a contract and the penalty for breaking it is loss of scholarship or, if transferring to play football on scholarship elsewhere, he must sit a year before playing. When you sign a contract, you agree to restrict your freedom by those terms. It doesn't mean a judge somewhere won't let you off the hook, but you should have to abide by the contract.

    I see your point about breaking the contract, but many players do all they are asked to do and the coaches just want someone better so they recruit over the guy. I don't see that as breaking the contract. It seems, if anyone is breaking the contract, it would be the coaches who misjudged a player's talent or aren't good enough to coach him up to the level they want.

  • DirtDawgDirtDawg Posts: 300 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:
    I think players ought to be able to transfer without riding the pine. Coaches move to new schools, right?

    Never really understood this comparison.
    If a coach decides to take a job before his contract is up there is a buyout--a penalty.
    If a player decides to transfer before his contract (scholarship) is up, there is no penalty--except sitting out a season.

    If coaches were allowed to ignore contracts and move at will--without monetary or legal penalty--think of the damage that would do to the sport. College football would be chaos if players were allowed to move at will with no consequence. The current system at least discourages that while allowing players to move--if they want to pay the penalty.

    I agree with you in that both players and coaches are penalized if they leave a school early. Players sit out a year; coaches pay the buy-out.

    Maybe the penalties are the problem. Coaches are allowed to begin coaching again immediately. I think players ought to have the same opportunity.

    So you are saying there should be no penalties? People should just come and go as they please? They should be able to make agreements and break them at will? If so, why do we have laws that govern a society? They are to ensure that people are protected from the harmful actions of others. College football is, in the bigger scheme of life, just a small thing. But it is a microcosm of life in the broader society. Without rules or laws, then football would die, or be replaced by some dystopic, Mad Max at Thunderdome kind of sport.

    No. That's not what I'm saying.

    From my point of view, the penalty a player has for going to another school early (sitting out for a year) is harsher on the player than the penalty a coach gets is on the coach (paying a buyout that is probably covered by the boosters at the coach's next school).

    I'm saying I don't think the players should face harsher penalties than coaches for leaving a team.

  • JayDogJayDog Posts: 3,978 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @DirtDawg said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:
    I think players ought to be able to transfer without riding the pine. Coaches move to new schools, right?

    Never really understood this comparison.
    If a coach decides to take a job before his contract is up there is a buyout--a penalty.
    If a player decides to transfer before his contract (scholarship) is up, there is no penalty--except sitting out a season.

    If coaches were allowed to ignore contracts and move at will--without monetary or legal penalty--think of the damage that would do to the sport. College football would be chaos if players were allowed to move at will with no consequence. The current system at least discourages that while allowing players to move--if they want to pay the penalty.

    I agree with you in that both players and coaches are penalized if they leave a school early. Players sit out a year; coaches pay the buy-out.

    Maybe the penalties are the problem. Coaches are allowed to begin coaching again immediately. I think players ought to have the same opportunity.

    So you are saying there should be no penalties? People should just come and go as they please? They should be able to make agreements and break them at will? If so, why do we have laws that govern a society? They are to ensure that people are protected from the harmful actions of others. College football is, in the bigger scheme of life, just a small thing. But it is a microcosm of life in the broader society. Without rules or laws, then football would die, or be replaced by some dystopic, Mad Max at Thunderdome kind of sport.

    No. That's not what I'm saying.

    From my point of view, the penalty a player has for going to another school early (sitting out for a year) is harsher on the player than the penalty a coach gets is on the coach (paying a buyout that is probably covered by the boosters at the coach's next school).

    I'm saying I don't think the players should face harsher penalties than coaches for leaving a team.

    Wish I could figure an answer. What penalty would be appropriate? And what would be a deterrent to kids transferring for frivolous reasons?

  • GBALGBAL Posts: 136 ✭✭ Sophomore

    @DirtDawg said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:
    I think players ought to be able to transfer without riding the pine. Coaches move to new schools, right?

    Never really understood this comparison.
    If a coach decides to take a job before his contract is up there is a buyout--a penalty.
    If a player decides to transfer before his contract (scholarship) is up, there is no penalty--except sitting out a season.

    If coaches were allowed to ignore contracts and move at will--without monetary or legal penalty--think of the damage that would do to the sport. College football would be chaos if players were allowed to move at will with no consequence. The current system at least discourages that while allowing players to move--if they want to pay the penalty.

    I agree with you in that both players and coaches are penalized if they leave a school early. Players sit out a year; coaches pay the buy-out.

    Maybe the penalties are the problem. Coaches are allowed to begin coaching again immediately. I think players ought to have the same opportunity.

    dont know why anyone would suggest tat coaches pay a but out for early exit. It aint so. no penalty at all to a coach moving.

  • GBALGBAL Posts: 136 ✭✭ Sophomore

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:
    I think players ought to be able to transfer without riding the pine. Coaches move to new schools, right?

    Never really understood this comparison.
    If a coach decides to take a job before his contract is up there is a buyout--a penalty.
    If a player decides to transfer before his contract (scholarship) is up, there is no penalty--except sitting out a season.

    If coaches were allowed to ignore contracts and move at will--without monetary or legal penalty--think of the damage that would do to the sport. College football would be chaos if players were allowed to move at will with no consequence. The current system at least discourages that while allowing players to move--if they want to pay the penalty.

    I agree with you in that both players and coaches are penalized if they leave a school early. Players sit out a year; coaches pay the buy-out.

    Maybe the penalties are the problem. Coaches are allowed to begin coaching again immediately. I think players ought to have the same opportunity.

    So you are saying there should be no penalties? People should just come and go as they please? They should be able to make agreements and break them at will? If so, why do we have laws that govern a society? They are to ensure that people are protected from the harmful actions of others. College football is, in the bigger scheme of life, just a small thing. But it is a microcosm of life in the broader society. Without rules or laws, then football would die, or be replaced by some dystopic, Mad Max at Thunderdome kind of sport.

    No. That's not what I'm saying.

    From my point of view, the penalty a player has for going to another school early (sitting out for a year) is harsher on the player than the penalty a coach gets is on the coach (paying a buyout that is probably covered by the boosters at the coach's next school).

    I'm saying I don't think the players should face harsher penalties than coaches for leaving a team.

    Wish I could figure an answer. What penalty would be appropriate? And what would be a deterrent to kids transferring for frivolous reasons?

    dont allow coaches to have buy out clauses. work out your contract.

  • DirtDawgDirtDawg Posts: 300 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:

    @JayDog said:

    @DirtDawg said:
    I think players ought to be able to transfer without riding the pine. Coaches move to new schools, right?

    Never really understood this comparison.
    If a coach decides to take a job before his contract is up there is a buyout--a penalty.
    If a player decides to transfer before his contract (scholarship) is up, there is no penalty--except sitting out a season.

    If coaches were allowed to ignore contracts and move at will--without monetary or legal penalty--think of the damage that would do to the sport. College football would be chaos if players were allowed to move at will with no consequence. The current system at least discourages that while allowing players to move--if they want to pay the penalty.

    I agree with you in that both players and coaches are penalized if they leave a school early. Players sit out a year; coaches pay the buy-out.

    Maybe the penalties are the problem. Coaches are allowed to begin coaching again immediately. I think players ought to have the same opportunity.

    So you are saying there should be no penalties? People should just come and go as they please? They should be able to make agreements and break them at will? If so, why do we have laws that govern a society? They are to ensure that people are protected from the harmful actions of others. College football is, in the bigger scheme of life, just a small thing. But it is a microcosm of life in the broader society. Without rules or laws, then football would die, or be replaced by some dystopic, Mad Max at Thunderdome kind of sport.

    No. That's not what I'm saying.

    From my point of view, the penalty a player has for going to another school early (sitting out for a year) is harsher on the player than the penalty a coach gets is on the coach (paying a buyout that is probably covered by the boosters at the coach's next school).

    I'm saying I don't think the players should face harsher penalties than coaches for leaving a team.

    Wish I could figure an answer. What penalty would be appropriate? And what would be a deterrent to kids transferring for frivolous reasons?

    Those are good questions.

Sign In or Register to comment.