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.
- 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.
Comments
Again, I don't think the term "free agent" applies if the losing school can put restrictions on where you can go.
agree. That's what I was alluding to. Why should college kids be restricted from being free agents? If they think the grass is greener, let them go check it out. Might make Universities and coaches operate a bit differently. Why should college sports be any different than the "real" world?
A counter proposal Make the scholarship good until the student gets a degree. I a student is restricted from transferring, then the university must continue to provide benefits until graduation. After all that is what the scholarship is for is't it. To give students a chance for a good education.
My only concern would be the power schools with huge budgets constantly targeting players on lesser teams. Some 3-star RB picks E. Michigan...has an amazing freshman season, now suddenly OSU and Michigan are recruiting this kid hard to transfer. Smaller schools would constantly be getting raided for their best players. Would create "Super Teams". Non-P5 teams would become feeder schools for P5 conferences. Kind of the whole reason the NFL has salary caps. Keeps the top teams with the most money from hoarding all the best players.
Great point. What happens if you have a guy sitting out a bowl and you dont' have a backup? I thought there was a clause for bowl games that they don't count as the regular season (except playoffs). I thought I read that RSs were allowed to play bowl games since they are really exhibition games.
I'm against both rule changes......Especially the one about not sitting out a year....how many recruits will tell you "That first year was rough but I'm glad I stuck it out".....now they would have a way out....they would also be distracted by recruiters during the season......leave the rule as is......
If RSs are allowed to play any amount of full games, that makes it a strategic decision. Save up your guys for that one rivalry game or the championship game. Completely negates the purpose of RS to start with. If they want to change the rule, it should be for emergency purposes only..and only for one game. Say you have 2 OL get injured in a game and you are down to only 1 active players at that position. In that situation you can let the RS play just in that game. You can't just plug in a DL to fill the hole. The next game the coach is going to have to figure something else out. Football has become such big money, and players are so specialized...a couple of injuries can be extremely costly (hello, FSU). So, I'm OK with letting a RS play in one game in an emergency situation.
People move from "lesser" jobs/companies to "better" jobs/companies all the time. Bigger fish eat littler fish. You are likely right about some teams becoming super teams. Look at the warriors and the teams LeBron moves to. Happens a lot I guess. The Yankees and Dodger have unlimited $ and buy great teams, albeit not always successfully. But is seems like we already are heading that way....the top 10 each year has some of the same suspects every year. Maybe it would get even worse.
It is already true here is a list of the top 25 schools in recruiting :
Georgia
Ohio State
Texas
Penn State
Alabama
Miami
Oklahoma
Notre Dame
Clemson
USC
Auburn
LSU
Washington
Michigan
Oregon
Tennessee
Florida
South Carolina
Virginia Tech
Maryland
TCU
N.C. State
Baylor
Michigan State
Louisville
After I retired from the military I went into government contracting, a very competitive environment. The contract I signed had a "No Compete" clause in it that prohibited me from going to certain other companies if I left before my contract was up. The real world can have restrictions also.
I agree this approach seems much more valuable to the team and the player. Some flexibility is usually more valuable.
I guess my concern is that a RS would become a strategic "silver bullet". Almost like a relief pitcher. Get in a pinch, break out the RS. He's not really a RS, the coach is just waiting for the right time to bring him in. I prefer a "break in case of emergency" deal. Only one game, not starting. And if he goes in, the guy he replaced can't come back in. Coach would have to declare who he is taking out. I just don't like the idea of RS being used as a tactical tool.
I'm more inclined to think the rs tag would be used for development purposes. Especially in critical situations few coaches want to lean on an inexperienced freshman. I understand your point though.
I've read the argument here "The rich get richer with these rule changes"....but when was the last time when the rich didn't get richer......look at the top ten going back for the last 50 years....80% of the times they are same teams year after year....Alabama, Ohio, USC, LSU, OU, Penn State, even Georgia and Clemson...oh a few drop out ....like Nebraska...but for the most parts it's the same teams year after year.,
Back in the day, before roster restrictions (85), the Bear would just round 'em up so that opponents couldn't get them. He just hoarded players, I think scholarship limits have helped "redistribute" talent on a more equal basis. No coaches would support it, but what if the limit was reduced even further? Say to 80? or 78? That would mean a lot more good players for "other" schools to get that wouldn't be going to the same top 20-25 teams. Just a thought. Of course, extending that thinking logically (sort of) the NCAA could go back to one platoon football and keep just 35-40 players per team. Players had to go both ways in those days. Seems like we'll be stuck with a small # of teams that are consistently "elite" for a while.