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.
Bama, Georgia, Ohio State and Clemson may be responsible for changing transfer rules.
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.
Comments
I'm not very excited about it either but I do think it's better than the current system where the NCAA, seemingly at random, gets to choose who sits a year and who is immediately eligible.
I agree that the NCAA's inconsistency is also leading to the conferences wanting a change.
SEC should support one free transfer, but with the caveat that the rule does not apply to in-conference transfers. You can transfer out, but most won't, as they'll have to go to the ACC or other mediocre conferences to play. I just don't like the idea of a player transferring to someone you play every year.
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.
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?
Like holding back the ocean at this point. It's coming and it's coming soon. Not happy about it. I think all transfers should sit out a year unless they are a graduate or their position coach/head coach left before they could get on campus (like all of Mel Tucker's guys in Colorado rn)
Flip side is, I question the mental fortitude of many of these young men jumping to another place when things aren't to their liking. Some will go to a better place, where their skills can be showcased (our impatient former backup QB) and others will transfer and not quite shine like everyone thought (Demetris Robertson off the top of my head). I think it's gonna be a 80/20 split on impact transfers going forward with the 80 having little to no impact immediately. And a 90/10 or 95/5 split on mental toughness
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.
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)
"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.
Interesting point. And you could certainly be correct.
Agree with the OP...the sudden movement (in the last 3-5 years) with respect to transfers seems to be based on short-sighted popularity in contrast to thoughtful consideration long-term health of CFB. Like many things, this seems like the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction after being "against" a transferring player for a long time. Graduates, yes. Probation, probably yes. Provable medical/family hardships, yes. A one-time freebie? Absolutely not. On a practical basis, the non-stop college free agency and never-ending recruiting (from within and outside the program) that might well result is pretty problematic for the sport and is being understated right now.
On a related note....requiring a one-year sit out period is not the death penalty that some make it out to be. Contrary to certain arguments, athletes ARE now able to transfer like other students with minimal restrictions as to their desired destination. They are able to be on scholarship immediately at new school and practice with their new team while sitting out. Also, the one-year requirement does not suspend a player's eligibility for NFL draft status.
Great points
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).
I like both ideas
I'd be okay with something like this:
This would be reasonable, IMO. There's enough safeguards in it to deter abuse by both kids and schools.