Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Potential big update to transfer rule

  1. #1

  2. #2
    I think players should have to sit out one semester. Can you imagine a basketball player transferring in December and playing in January? The article does not address in-conference transfers.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahsMrSports View Post
    Sounds like this is getting more and more likely.


  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwight Schr-Ute View Post
    Sounds like this is getting more and more likely.
    Not a fan.

    I imagine this would help Utah steal the better players from G5 programs, and it would help USC steal the better players fro Utah. Any title contender that has a particular position need will go recruiting.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by sancho View Post
    Not a fan.

    I imagine this would help Utah steal the better players from G5 programs, and it would help USC steal the better players fro Utah. Any title contender that has a particular position need will go recruiting.
    I also think it would let Utah grab players at places like USC and UCLA that aren't getting playing time and/or recruited over. BUT, I think there would be enough chaos that would be a disaster. Just look how many transfers are happening in college basketball WITH a penalty.

  6. #6
    Whoa. This sucks for the coaches. And in some ways, sucks for the kids.

    I wonder how many kids at Utah who have left with degrees (Hughes) would have left earlier and then ran out of eligibility with no degrees.

    I know it’s a business and money and coaches salaries, etc, but there are a lot of men who leave with degrees who otherwise would not (Stevie Tui’kolovatu).

    As much as some athletes are screwed monetarily, most come out waaaaay ahead.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Utah View Post
    As much as some athletes are screwed monetarily, most come out waaaaay ahead.
    Yeah, I think the NCAA, media and fans would do well to remember the proverb "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Utah View Post
    Whoa. This sucks for the coaches. And in some ways, sucks for the kids.

    I wonder how many kids at Utah who have left with degrees (Hughes) would have left earlier and then ran out of eligibility with no degrees.

    I know it’s a business and money and coaches salaries, etc, but there are a lot of men who leave with degrees who otherwise would not (Stevie Tui’kolovatu).

    As much as some athletes are screwed monetarily, most come out waaaaay ahead.
    The graduate transfer rule does not suck at all for the kids. You can two degrees out of playing ball.

    And this just means that the abusive coaches are going to lose players more easily. It doesn't suck for the kids.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Two Utes View Post
    The graduate transfer rule does not suck at all for the kids. You can two degrees out of playing ball.

    And this just means that the abusive coaches are going to lose players more easily. It doesn't suck for the kids.
    O
    I agree completely. Coaches have way too much power. They can take a job at another University and they don't have to sit out. Why should a player be limited? They are the ones actually playing. If a normal college student can transfer to another university without sitting out it shouldnt be any different for an athlete.
    "Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum

    "And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Two Utes View Post
    The graduate transfer rule does not suck at all for the kids. You can two degrees out of playing ball.

    And this just means that the abusive coaches are going to lose players more easily. It doesn't suck for the kids.
    Agreed, it's great for kids. It sucks for coaches and college football. It really should be limited in some way to kids who aren't getting playing time. Otherwise every team other than the top 10 or so blue bloods is going to essentially become a farm team for the schools higher up on the pecking order.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Two Utes View Post
    The graduate transfer rule does not suck at all for the kids. You can two degrees out of playing ball.

    And this just means that the abusive coaches are going to lose players more easily. It doesn't suck for the kids.
    No one is talking about the grad transfer rule. I’m 100% for it. The kid got his degree. He should be able to leave.

    Abusive coaches? Sure. But that isn’t the issue. What happens when Huntley has the year he did, Chip Kelly calls him up and tells him he’s going to UCLA and he wants Huntley to be the QB?

    What happens when kid A goes to a program, doesn’t play for two years, is in line to graduate and leaves to another program, doesn’t play there and school #2 doesn’t care about his grades?

    Tui’kolovatu is a perfect example of this. He graduate s early because Utah held his hand the whole way. What if he leaves after two years, goes to another school where they won’t hold his hand and then fails out after a year?

    Is the system perfect? No way. Some kids are screwed out of money. But most aren’t.

    For players like Tui’kolovatu, staying at a school like Utah changes his life forever.

    Are we going to sacrifice all the good so someone like Cam Newton doesn’t have to play JC ball?

    That’s a steep price to pay.

    Now, if a coach leaves...I’d be open to a 10 day window kids can leave.

  12. #12
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    15,961
    Does anyone else think this opens the door to more shady dealings? For example, back-door contacts through intermediaries with good or promising players?

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch View Post
    Agreed, it's great for kids. It sucks for coaches and college football. It really should be limited in some way to kids who aren't getting playing time. Otherwise every team other than the top 10 or so blue bloods is going to essentially become a farm team for the schools higher up on the pecking order.
    I agree. You have to do what's best for the sport first. If you let the sport die, then you aren't able to help any kids through scholarships. It's not like the current rules are oppressive. Sit out a year.

    The students are already given a free education. It's not crazy to ask that in return they agree to a few rules that help maintain the sport.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    Does anyone else think this opens the door to more shady dealings? For example, back-door contacts through intermediaries with good or promising players?
    Absolutely. Bag men galore. More shady people making deals in alleys.

    You think college basketball is shady? Football will become just like it if not worse.

  15. #15
    Two new NCAA rules have been announced that will have some impact on recruiting moving forward. The first, which has received the most attention, is not allowing coaches to block the ability of a transferring player to receive financial aid if that player transfers to a blocked school. This is being talked about like it is a huge change. IMO, it is not such a big change because players were always free to transfer wherever they wanted. The original school could only prevent them from receiving a scholarship the first year. This is what USU did to David Collette. The second, allows a football player to play in as many as 4 games and still redshirt. This is a significant rule change that will benefit both players and schools. I like both changes.

    Conferences will be allowed to have stricter rules for in-conference transfers and it will be interesting to see how this plays out in PAC 12 and elsewhere.

    There has been no decision on allowing players to become immediately eligible upon transferring. I think they should, but that there should be some limitations. Players would not be immediately eligible unless the transfer was initiated during certain time-periods. For football/basketball, the intent to transfer must be announced prior to May 15. I picked May 15 because at least up until a couple of years ago, players and schools signed financial aid agreements for the following school year before the end of spring semester. May 15 is, I believe a fair day for that to happen.

    I would also like the NCAA to set forth a firm penalty for schools that initiate contact with players before they inform their current school of the intent to transfer. IMO, the penalty should be to eliminate 5 scholarships from football/ 1 from basketball for a period of 2 years. I would also be in favor of limiting the number of transfers a school can take in any given year. Two in football and one in basketball.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Twin Falls, Idaho
    Posts
    3,035
    Quote Originally Posted by UTEopia View Post
    Two new NCAA rules have been announced that will have some impact on recruiting moving forward. The first, which has received the most attention, is not allowing coaches to block the ability of a transferring player to receive financial aid if that player transfers to a blocked school. This is being talked about like it is a huge change. IMO, it is not such a big change because players were always free to transfer wherever they wanted. The original school could only prevent them from receiving a scholarship the first year. This is what USU did to David Collette. The second, allows a football player to play in as many as 4 games and still redshirt. This is a significant rule change that will benefit both players and schools. I like both changes.

    Conferences will be allowed to have stricter rules for in-conference transfers and it will be interesting to see how this plays out in PAC 12 and elsewhere.

    There has been no decision on allowing players to become immediately eligible upon transferring. I think they should, but that there should be some limitations. Players would not be immediately eligible unless the transfer was initiated during certain time-periods. For football/basketball, the intent to transfer must be announced prior to May 15. I picked May 15 because at least up until a couple of years ago, players and schools signed financial aid agreements for the following school year before the end of spring semester. May 15 is, I believe a fair day for that to happen.

    I would also like the NCAA to set forth a firm penalty for schools that initiate contact with players before they inform their current school of the intent to transfer. IMO, the penalty should be to eliminate 5 scholarships from football/ 1 from basketball for a period of 2 years. I would also be in favor of limiting the number of transfers a school can take in any given year. Two in football and one in basketball.
    Football has 85 kids on scholarship, basketball just 13. That's a 6.5-1 ratio. So a 2-1 ratio for accepting transfers from other schools just isn't going to cut it. Make it 5-1 and then we can talk. And quite frankly, I don't see hoops pigeonholing itself into allowing only one such transfer per year. So the numbers and ratio are gonna have to be a lot higher. I like your idea, but 2-1 is totally inadequate.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Twin Falls, Idaho
    Posts
    3,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death View Post
    O
    I agree completely. Coaches have way too much power. They can take a job at another University and they don't have to sit out. Why should a player be limited? They are the ones actually playing. If a normal college student can transfer to another university without sitting out it shouldnt be any different for an athlete.
    I'm all for being immediately eligible if you transfer out of the league, but transferring within the conference should carry the same penalty as always. Many jurisdictions still honor non-compete clauses in contracts; just put that in writing when they sign their LOI.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •