Transfers will hurt College football

law_dawg35law_dawg35 Posts: 428 ✭✭✭ Junior

Every since they have implemented the new transfer rules i have thought this would be bad for CFB. And now that i see how it is working i still think it may slowly kill CFB.

I guess im old school but There is no accountability anymore. Players now know if they dont like it, they can just transfer. And i believe it will get worse in the comming years.

If your going to let the players transfer you have to be strict with the transfer rules. If not CFB may turn into the NFL 2.0. Atleast in the NFL players cant just leave a team if there unhappy.

«13

Comments

  • LORLOR Posts: 64 ✭✭ Sophomore

    Yes, if a person doesn’t like their situation they can choose to change their environment. Historically it’s been a one way street where the player is stuck and the university wasn’t even forced to offer a 4 year scholarship. In essence, the university held all the cards. Truth is, the players are still at a disadvantage having to generally sit a year (not including hardship cases). The power is still decidedly in the university’s favor, and you’re really only hearing about a small handful of high profile cases. Just curious, but how do you feel that it’s “slowly killing” the sport?

    Also, nfl players have agents, contracts and a union. Not a fair comparison. They can demand a trade or to be cut, and can sign with another team the next day, no penalty. Also, look for changes to the franchise tag when the next collective bargaining agreement rolls around.

  • reheckmanreheckman Posts: 63 ✭✭✭ Junior

    Hardship lol

  • PharmDawg2054PharmDawg2054 Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    entitled 18 year olds who have been told their entire life that they are special and the best as they always got their snow cone and participation trophy will hurt college football.

    helicopter parents will also hurt college football

  • allywallyw Posts: 241 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @PharmDawg2054 helicopter parents will hurt the world in general IMHO...

  • BankwalkerBankwalker Posts: 1,925 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @law_dawg35 said:
    Every since they have implemented the new transfer rules i have thought this would be bad for CFB. And now that i see how it is working i still think it may slowly kill CFB.

    I guess im old school but There is no accountability anymore. Players now know if they dont like it, they can just transfer. And i believe it will get worse in the comming years.

    If your going to let the players transfer you have to be strict with the transfer rules. If not CFB may turn into the NFL 2.0. Atleast in the NFL players cant just leave a team if there unhappy.

    When you were a student, if you didnt like it then you could transfer - provided you could meet academic requirements.

    Nobody was opposed to eason transferring. The only difference with Fields is he only stayed one year and got made to look bad when UGA leaked the story because they needed it out to help recruiting.

  • joeyww12000joeyww12000 Posts: 100 ✭✭✭ Junior

    I kinda like all the drama. It adds another element, making it fun to keep up with year round now....Not that it wasn’t before but this soap opera is great now! At least we don’t have the one and done. Maybe it will evenly disperse talent in the long run, making college ball better?

  • SoFL_DawgSoFL_Dawg Posts: 3,312 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    It will stabilize.

  • RDDawgRDDawg Posts: 163 ✭✭✭ Junior

    Fields has sure set himself up to look like an a*# if he doesn’t do well at OSU.

  • CZCashvilleDawgCZCashvilleDawg Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @Bankwalker said:

    Nobody was opposed to eason transferring. The only difference with Fields is he only stayed one year and got made to look bad when UGA leaked the story because they needed it out to help recruiting.

    Where did you see that UGA leaked the story ?

  • pgjacksonpgjackson Posts: 3,603 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    It is not good for the sport, but it is great for free human beings. The military is the only other place I can think of where you just can’t leave. I went to two different colleges and nobody cared. And with the constant coaching carousel, these kids have no idea who their coach will be. Why should they be locked into a school. It’s the coach’s job to keep the players happy. Just like it’s your boss’ job at work to keep employees happy, or else they may leave.

  • UGAJ0EUGAJ0E Posts: 114 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @SoFL_Dawg said:
    It will stabilize.

    I 100% agree with this. Transfers and so many kids leaving early for the draft will correct itself over time. But I dont think it's a bad thing that kids get to move on. If they dont like their environment or if they aren't getting an opportunity then they should be allowed to leave.

    Football is essentially these guys' occupation, and they should be allowed to leave their "job" for a better one someone else.

    The floodgates will open eventually with transfers but I'm ok with it and I dont see it being a widespread issue.

  • KaseyKasey Posts: 5,530 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I think once they realize that sticking it out helps as much as transferring it will balance out

  • CZCashvilleDawgCZCashvilleDawg Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Maybe, UGA just needs a few to go their way and fans will change their tune ?

  • LORLOR Posts: 64 ✭✭ Sophomore

    @CZCashvilleDawg said:
    Maybe, UGA just needs a few to go their way and fans will change their tune ?

    Jarvis Jones, DRob, Maurice Smith. We most certainly have benefitted from transfers.

  • oldon42oldon42 Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @LOR said:

    @CZCashvilleDawg said:
    Maybe, UGA just needs a few to go their way and fans will change their tune ?

    Jarvis Jones, DRob, Maurice Smith. We most certainly have benefitted from transfers.

    J R Reed

  • levanderlevander Posts: 4,189 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I don’t know if it will ultimately be more good or bad.

    But one thing it will hurt is the stacking talent recruiting model Saban and now Kirby employs. You’re gonna have to keep your talent happy if you want them to stay. Saban’s regularly had blue chip athletes stay at his school and not play until their senior year. I’m guessing if after a kid’s first year he doesn’t see a clear path to playing time, most of the time he’ll transfer.

    One way I definitely think it hurts the game, and not just a specific recruiting model, is what may have happened with Justin Fields. If OSU told him to come and he can start, that eliminates kids’ motivation for staying at a school and waiting their turn. Justin may very well have transferred anyway. I more don’t like what it does to OSU than what it does to UGA.

    If they told Justin if he came he could start. But that’s my guess what happened.

    I’m kind of fine with kids treating it like free agency. But coaches treating it that way seems wrong. Like it’s not what being a student should be about. Having your teacher trade you out for someone else.

  • pgjacksonpgjackson Posts: 3,603 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Are there rules against coaches or programs going after other players? Seems like there should be a rule that other programs can’t contact a player until he has officially entered the portal.

  • law_dawg35law_dawg35 Posts: 428 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @levander said:
    I don’t know if it will ultimately be more good or bad.

    But one thing it will hurt is the stacking talent recruiting model Saban and now Kirby employs. You’re gonna have to keep your talent happy if you want them to stay. Saban’s regularly had blue chip athletes stay at his school and not play until their senior year. I’m guessing if after a kid’s first year he doesn’t see a clear path to playing time, most of the time he’ll transfer.

    One way I definitely think it hurts the game, and not just a specific recruiting model, is what may have happened with Justin Fields. If OSU told him to come and he can start, that eliminates kids’ motivation for staying at a school and waiting their turn. Justin may very well have transferred anyway. I more don’t like what it does to OSU than what it does to UGA.

    If they told Justin if he came he could start. But that’s my guess what happened.

    I’m kind of fine with kids treating it like free agency. But coaches treating it that way seems wrong. Like it’s not what being a student should be about. Having your teacher trade you out for someone else.

    You are right it is differently going to make it harder to stack talent/depth. There may never be another Bama type run if kids start transferring at a higher rate.

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

    @law_dawg35 said:
    Every since they have implemented the new transfer rules i have thought this would be bad for CFB. And now that i see how it is working i still think it may slowly kill CFB.

    I guess im old school but There is no accountability anymore. Players now know if they dont like it, they can just transfer. And i believe it will get worse in the comming years.

    If your going to let the players transfer you have to be strict with the transfer rules. If not CFB may turn into the NFL 2.0. Atleast in the NFL players cant just leave a team if there unhappy.

    Antonio Brown? Barry Sanders?

  • donmdonm Posts: 7,808 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited January 12

    @law_dawg35 said:

    @levander said:
    I don’t know if it will ultimately be more good or bad.

    But one thing it will hurt is the stacking talent recruiting model Saban and now Kirby employs. You’re gonna have to keep your talent happy if you want them to stay. Saban’s regularly had blue chip athletes stay at his school and not play until their senior year. I’m guessing if after a kid’s first year he doesn’t see a clear path to playing time, most of the time he’ll transfer.

    One way I definitely think it hurts the game, and not just a specific recruiting model, is what may have happened with Justin Fields. If OSU told him to come and he can start, that eliminates kids’ motivation for staying at a school and waiting their turn. Justin may very well have transferred anyway. I more don’t like what it does to OSU than what it does to UGA.

    If they told Justin if he came he could start. But that’s my guess what happened.

    I’m kind of fine with kids treating it like free agency. But coaches treating it that way seems wrong. Like it’s not what being a student should be about. Having your teacher trade you out for someone else.

    You are right it is differently going to make it harder to stack talent/depth. There may never be another Bama type run if kids start transferring at a higher rate.

    If the NCAA would enforce its own rules....1 year sit out rule -automatically with no waivers, the portal would be nearly empty.

  • OroValleyDawgOroValleyDawg Posts: 133 ✭✭✭ Junior

    this is happening more and more at the high school level also. I coach out here in Arizona and players have to sit out 6 games if they transfer minus a hardship. You won't believe some of the hardship claims, think JF, maybe even a little worse.

    Is this happening in Georgia and other states at the high school level?

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

    @pgjackson said:
    It is not good for the sport, but it is great for free human beings. The military is the only other place I can think of where you just can’t leave. I went to two different colleges and nobody cared. And with the constant coaching carousel, these kids have no idea who their coach will be. Why should they be locked into a school. It’s the coach’s job to keep the players happy. Just like it’s your boss’ job at work to keep employees happy, or else they may leave.

    In the real world, people sign non-disclosure agreements all the time. They are then not free to say whatever they want--contrary to the notion of "freedom". Laws dictate consequences for speech that is slanderous so our freedom is restricted to a point by consequences. The point is that by living in a society, or taking a job, or accepting a scholarship from a school--people enter into a civil agreement. Almost always, there are consequences for breaking that covenant.

    No one says a kid can't transfer if he wants. I think he should be allowed to do so. But to remove consequence from the equation might end up changing football in way few of us would like. Most coaches have a buyout clause in their contract. Sitting a year is the buyout clause for the kids. Such contracts make people think twice. That is good for the sport and I believe, for the person as well--in most cases.

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

    The sport has been largely immune to the advancements we've made in making the workplace more fair over the past 50 years.
    Our little boys club can use some reforming.

  • dradcliffdradcliff Posts: 232 ✭✭✭ Junior

    @donm said:

    @law_dawg35 said:

    @levander said:
    I don’t know if it will ultimately be more good or bad.

    But one thing it will hurt is the stacking talent recruiting model Saban and now Kirby employs. You’re gonna have to keep your talent happy if you want them to stay. Saban’s regularly had blue chip athletes stay at his school and not play until their senior year. I’m guessing if after a kid’s first year he doesn’t see a clear path to playing time, most of the time he’ll transfer.

    One way I definitely think it hurts the game, and not just a specific recruiting model, is what may have happened with Justin Fields. If OSU told him to come and he can start, that eliminates kids’ motivation for staying at a school and waiting their turn. Justin may very well have transferred anyway. I more don’t like what it does to OSU than what it does to UGA.

    If they told Justin if he came he could start. But that’s my guess what happened.

    I’m kind of fine with kids treating it like free agency. But coaches treating it that way seems wrong. Like it’s not what being a student should be about. Having your teacher trade you out for someone else.

    You are right it is differently going to make it harder to stack talent/depth. There may never be another Bama type run if kids start transferring at a higher rate.

    If the NCAA would enforce its own rules....1 year sit out rule -automatically with no waivers, the portal would be nearly empty.

    I agree. No restrictions on when or where and no waivers. I also think the 4 game Red shirt rule should only count at your current school.
    There is no way a player should be allowed to play in 4 games then decide they dont like their current situation and transfer and count that season as a red shirt.

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

    @dradcliff said:

    @donm said:

    @law_dawg35 said:

    @levander said:
    I don’t know if it will ultimately be more good or bad.

    But one thing it will hurt is the stacking talent recruiting model Saban and now Kirby employs. You’re gonna have to keep your talent happy if you want them to stay. Saban’s regularly had blue chip athletes stay at his school and not play until their senior year. I’m guessing if after a kid’s first year he doesn’t see a clear path to playing time, most of the time he’ll transfer.

    One way I definitely think it hurts the game, and not just a specific recruiting model, is what may have happened with Justin Fields. If OSU told him to come and he can start, that eliminates kids’ motivation for staying at a school and waiting their turn. Justin may very well have transferred anyway. I more don’t like what it does to OSU than what it does to UGA.

    If they told Justin if he came he could start. But that’s my guess what happened.

    I’m kind of fine with kids treating it like free agency. But coaches treating it that way seems wrong. Like it’s not what being a student should be about. Having your teacher trade you out for someone else.

    You are right it is differently going to make it harder to stack talent/depth. There may never be another Bama type run if kids start transferring at a higher rate.

    If the NCAA would enforce its own rules....1 year sit out rule -automatically with no waivers, the portal would be nearly empty.

    I agree. No restrictions on when or where and no waivers. I also think the 4 game Red shirt rule should only count at your current school.
    There is no way a player should be allowed to play in 4 games then decide they dont like their current situation and transfer and count that season as a red shirt.

    I tend to fall in that camp on all points.

    There needs to be some way to deal with extenuating circumstances though--some exceptions. For instance, I don't have a problem with Luke Ford transferring without penalty to be near his sick grandfather. Even that exception should consider the distance involved to prove hardship. Homesickness is not enough--it should be serious illness to get get the waiver. There may be other situations--like life threatening or racial bias exceptions. However those should meet the same legal standard of evidence (and remedy) that is used in all such cases. Only if a court would deem a situation as "hostile" and unaddressed should a waiver be granted.

  • levanderlevander Posts: 4,189 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    @dradcliff said:

    @donm said:

    @law_dawg35 said:

    @levander said:
    I don’t know if it will ultimately be more good or bad.

    But one thing it will hurt is the stacking talent recruiting model Saban and now Kirby employs. You’re gonna have to keep your talent happy if you want them to stay. Saban’s regularly had blue chip athletes stay at his school and not play until their senior year. I’m guessing if after a kid’s first year he doesn’t see a clear path to playing time, most of the time he’ll transfer.

    One way I definitely think it hurts the game, and not just a specific recruiting model, is what may have happened with Justin Fields. If OSU told him to come and he can start, that eliminates kids’ motivation for staying at a school and waiting their turn. Justin may very well have transferred anyway. I more don’t like what it does to OSU than what it does to UGA.

    If they told Justin if he came he could start. But that’s my guess what happened.

    I’m kind of fine with kids treating it like free agency. But coaches treating it that way seems wrong. Like it’s not what being a student should be about. Having your teacher trade you out for someone else.

    You are right it is differently going to make it harder to stack talent/depth. There may never be another Bama type run if kids start transferring at a higher rate.

    If the NCAA would enforce its own rules....1 year sit out rule -automatically with no waivers, the portal would be nearly empty.

    I agree. No restrictions on when or where and no waivers. I also think the 4 game Red shirt rule should only count at your current school.
    There is no way a player should be allowed to play in 4 games then decide they dont like their current situation and transfer and count that season as a red shirt.

    The only waivers should be for eligibility, not play time. Like there’s some 5 year clock rule, where if you don’t get.a medical exemption you only have five years to play four. If you’re Mom gets sick, just take a year off football. Then you can be with your Mom even more. But that year won’t count against your eligibilty if you get a waiver.

    And the stuff about coaches trading players like OSU might have done with Fields. The kids themselves really need to handle that and discount schools who do that.

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

    @JayDog said:

    @pgjackson said:
    It is not good for the sport, but it is great for free human beings. The military is the only other place I can think of where you just can’t leave. I went to two different colleges and nobody cared. And with the constant coaching carousel, these kids have no idea who their coach will be. Why should they be locked into a school. It’s the coach’s job to keep the players happy. Just like it’s your boss’ job at work to keep employees happy, or else they may leave.

    In the real world, people sign non-disclosure agreements all the time. They are then not free to say whatever they want--contrary to the notion of "freedom". Laws dictate consequences for speech that is slanderous so our freedom is restricted to a point by consequences. The point is that by living in a society, or taking a job, or accepting a scholarship from a school--people enter into a civil agreement. Almost always, there are consequences for breaking that covenant.

    No one says a kid can't transfer if he wants. I think he should be allowed to do so. But to remove consequence from the equation might end up changing football in way few of us would like. Most coaches have a buyout clause in their contract. Sitting a year is the buyout clause for the kids. Such contracts make people think twice. That is good for the sport and I believe, for the person as well--in most cases.

    Name an entire industry that dictates such restrictions outside of sports. Lawyers would destroy them in courts of law.
    Collusion, unfair labor practices, monopolistic behavior, etc, etc.

  • GBALGBAL Posts: 136 ✭✭ Sophomore

    @law_dawg35 said:
    Every since they have implemented the new transfer rules i have thought this would be bad for CFB. And now that i see how it is working i still think it may slowly kill CFB.

    I guess im old school but There is no accountability anymore. Players now know if they dont like it, they can just transfer. And i believe it will get worse in the comming years.

    If your going to let the players transfer you have to be strict with the transfer rules. If not CFB may turn into the NFL 2.0. Atleast in the NFL players cant just leave a team if there unhappy.

    coaches should also be required to fulfill their contracts. no buy outs.

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

    @WCDawg said:

    @JayDog said:

    @pgjackson said:
    It is not good for the sport, but it is great for free human beings. The military is the only other place I can think of where you just can’t leave. I went to two different colleges and nobody cared. And with the constant coaching carousel, these kids have no idea who their coach will be. Why should they be locked into a school. It’s the coach’s job to keep the players happy. Just like it’s your boss’ job at work to keep employees happy, or else they may leave.

    In the real world, people sign non-disclosure agreements all the time. They are then not free to say whatever they want--contrary to the notion of "freedom". Laws dictate consequences for speech that is slanderous so our freedom is restricted to a point by consequences. The point is that by living in a society, or taking a job, or accepting a scholarship from a school--people enter into a civil agreement. Almost always, there are consequences for breaking that covenant.

    No one says a kid can't transfer if he wants. I think he should be allowed to do so. But to remove consequence from the equation might end up changing football in way few of us would like. Most coaches have a buyout clause in their contract. Sitting a year is the buyout clause for the kids. Such contracts make people think twice. That is good for the sport and I believe, for the person as well--in most cases.

    Name an entire industry that dictates such restrictions outside of sports. Lawyers would destroy them in courts of law.
    Collusion, unfair labor practices, monopolistic behavior, etc, etc.

    I'm not going through the exercise of doing such a thing...though I could. I will simply put forward college football as one "entire industry" that has somehow avoided being destroyed by lawyers for collusion, unfair labor practices, etc. Why? College football is not an employer of players and playing is not a "job". That is where much of the confusion lies in this debate. Education is the primary goal of a university--not winning championships.

    The comparison of "an entire industry" is irrelevant anyway. The question at hand is civil agreements and if they should have any weight. Do contracts mean anything? If the primary goal is to provide an education then transfers for playing time are irrelevant to the goal. Does your unhappiness with playing time somehow hinder you in your studies? Only if you care about NFL opportunities more than your education.

    Whether you play or not, you will receive a free education. If this were a job, it would be tantamount to getting paid for poor performance, rather than be fired. Now if coaches could simply release players who don't perform well, for that reason alone--then this would be more like a job. In such a case, players should be able to come and go at will without restriction.

  • GBALGBAL Posts: 136 ✭✭ Sophomore

    @Bankwalker said:

    @law_dawg35 said:
    Every since they have implemented the new transfer rules i have thought this would be bad for CFB. And now that i see how it is working i still think it may slowly kill CFB.

    I guess im old school but There is no accountability anymore. Players now know if they dont like it, they can just transfer. And i believe it will get worse in the comming years.

    If your going to let the players transfer you have to be strict with the transfer rules. If not CFB may turn into the NFL 2.0. Atleast in the NFL players cant just leave a team if there unhappy.

    When you were a student, if you didnt like it then you could transfer - provided you could meet academic requirements.

    Nobody was opposed to eason transferring. The only difference with Fields is he only stayed one year and got made to look bad when UGA leaked the story because they needed it out to help recruiting.

    eason sat out a year.... so no, noone was opposed.

«13
Sign In or Register to comment.