Home General
Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:

- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)

- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans

- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum

- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.

Bama, Georgia, Ohio State and Clemson may be responsible for changing transfer rules.

texdawgtexdawg Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

First the Big 10 and now the ACC is backing a one time transfer without sitting out change to transfers. I expect other conferences to back the change as well.

I know many on here are for open transfers.....I'm strongly against it. I believe players should sit out a year when transferring....unless they are a graduate.

But I'm not going to change minds and I'm pretty set in my opinion.

The point is.....I believe the conferences are supporting this transfer change because they are tired of just a few schools controlling most of the elite talent.

This change could even out the playing field to a certain degree.



  • Options
    texdawgtexdawg Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I agree that the NCAA's inconsistency is also leading to the conferences wanting a change.

  • Options
    dirtypantsdirtypants Posts: 259 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    I don't like the rampant transfers but at the same time the NCAA has proven completely incompetent in implementing a uniform transfer policy. Luke Ford is the obvious example. Giving the discretion to the NCAA makes the whole process flawed. The other thing is, coaches can chase that golden paycheck, why not let kids chase a once in a lifetime opportunity to play college football if they can't compete at their first stop. I think either one of these reasons is good enough for the rule change, having both makes it easier.

  • Options
    WalterWalter Posts: 105 ✭✭✭ Junior

    I agree with you personally on sitting out a year, except graduates.  Justin Fields was on and on about not being afraid of the competition, then transferred after the first year the job wasn't awarded to him.

    Do you think this change would lead to a dramatic uptick in transfers?

  • Options
    texdawgtexdawg Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Yes.....a huge uptick in transfers. Managing the 85 man roster will be a nightmare.

    I also fear coaching abuse if this changes. Coaches encouraging kids to transfer. It happens occasionally now.......but maybe not at the extent it could with this change.

  • Options
    texdawgtexdawg Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Graduate QBs seem to do well with the transfers.

    But look at the players who have transferred the past few years. Most/many....not all...don't find success at the new school.

    Graduate transfers probably have a much higher rate of success because they are more mature and focused.....hence the degree.

    There is a mindset with many of the kids that transfer that is just not consistent with the mindset needed to be an elite athlete.

    (Yes....there are exceptions and transfers that worked out for the player)

  • Options
    NomadDawgNomadDawg Posts: 436 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    "I believe the conferences are supporting this transfer change because they are tired of just a few schools controlling most of the elite talent."

    I'm curious to see which way the talent flow will go. I'd actually expect the talent gap to widen under this rule. Sure, you'll have the guys that can't make a roster dent in two years go to smaller schools to try for a bit of exposure. But I think the more impactful move will be similar to what we're already seeing under the grad transfer rule (particularly QBs as you mentioned) where a star on one team wants to increase draft chances and finds a top notch school with a glaring need.

    IMO, the biggest downside of this will be the year round internal recruiting. But ultimately, I'm a reluctant proponent of it. It's coming anyways and it gives the players the best possible opportunity to maximize their talents while putting a better product on the field.

    For argument's sake, pretend Newman was a rising senior, not a grad transfer. I think everyone in here would prefer he get that 1 year ban lifted, if for nothing else than to push Beck immediately. Automatic transfers means a better 2020 UGA team and an opportunity for Newman (in this hypo) to showcase his skills. The player, team, and fans all win in this scenario.

  • Options
    texdawgtexdawg Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
  • Options
    JoelSidneyKellyJoelSidneyKelly Posts: 3,678 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited February 2020

    I would rather see them abolish all waivers.

    I am aware that there are legitimate hardships. Still...

    I'm also not convinced this proposed rule change would help "spread the wealth."

    I am all for requesting a sixth year (to play four).

  • Options
    texdawgtexdawg Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I like both ideas

  • Options
    BeefDawgBeefDawg Posts: 115 ✭✭✭✭ Senior

    I'd be okay with something like this:

    • If you transfer out of conference AND to a team your former team doesn't have on it's schedule during your eligibility years, you get a 1x immediate eligibility and don't have to sit out. And, if you red-shirted a year at your former school, you lose that red-shirt, unless it was medical.
    • If you transfer in-conference or to a team on your former team's schedule during your eligibility years, you must sit out a year. You also cannot/do not get a red-shirt for this year of sitting out.
    • A second transfer anywhere results in a year sitting out and cannot red-shirt that year of sitting out.
    • Any school can waive any of these rules for their athletes transferring away if they wish.
    • Any athlete who is "asked" to transfer (ie. "processed") has no restrictions on where they can go, is immediately eligible, and doesn't have to sit out a year.
    • Graduate transfer and non-scholarship rules unchanged.

    This would be reasonable, IMO. There's enough safeguards in it to deter abuse by both kids and schools.

  • Options
    MinnesotaDawgMinnesotaDawg Posts: 552 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Would rather this than going the other way. If you're going to provide something for the players, provide the four-year guaranteed scholarship.

  • Options
    CZCashvilleDawgCZCashvilleDawg Posts: 9,360 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    This must happen too, which will allow the top schools to stock pile more talent initially and let the cream rise to the top. (Less processing as guys will leave on their own easier).

Sign In or Register to comment.