NCAA Looking at Changing Transfer Rules

[DAG 33,955]

11 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Hey brother, check your PM. So sorry - defenitely NOT what I intended. 

Barnacle is the man!!

[Barnacle 9,064]

6 minutes ago, DAG said:

Barnacle is the man!!

Man, I make so many mistakes. I'm just glad there are people who care enough to point them out to me. 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Seems sensible.  You transfer, you sit out a year, that's it.  No telling a kid where he can or can't go on scholarship.

Maybe the only caveat I'd add would be that you can't transfer to anyone that's on your old team's schedule in the next two seasons.  Otherwise, let them be. 

[abw0004 10,104]

Here is my two cents.  I believe a school should be allowed to tell the kid he can't go to a school that is in their schedule for that upcoming year.  You have to keep in mind that is takes 8+ months to install an offense for the upcoming season.  If a kid bails, especially after Spring ball like Character and Jackson did, the former team has to scramble to change everything.  The wealth of knowledge that transfer now has on your gameplan could be detrimental.  So I am all for not letting kids transfer to schools on your schedule.  Yes I know saying that means Tray Matthews would never be on our team, but it is just how I feel.

Regarding random schools like OSU, from what I was told, OSU was recruiting Jackson to transfer.  This is what college football cannot allow.  You cannot let/reward coaches for talking to players already on a team trying to get them to transfer to join their team.

[Gowebb11 9,308]

48 minutes ago, abw0004 said:

Here is my two cents.  I believe a school should be allowed to tell the kid he can't go to a school that is in their schedule for that upcoming year.  You have to keep in mind that is takes 8+ months to install an offense for the upcoming season.  If a kid bails, especially after Spring ball like Character and Jackson did, the former team has to scramble to change everything.  The wealth of knowledge that transfer now has on your gameplan could be detrimental.  So I am all for not letting kids transfer to schools on your schedule.  Yes I know saying that means Tray Matthews would never be on our team, but it is just how I feel.

Regarding random schools like OSU, from what I was told, OSU was recruiting Jackson to transfer.  This is what college football cannot allow.  You cannot let/reward coaches for talking to players already on a team trying to get them to transfer to join their team.

Your points are good ones, but I don't buy in to an 18 or 19 year old kid having high level intel on a college teams game plan. That's a bit paranoid for me. These coaches are making millions of dollars a year, have coordinators with years of college and NFL experience, and a staff full of former successful college and high school coaches on staff just to analyze video and study tendencies. If a 19 year old kid can unravel all of that, then you're not going to be in coaching very long. 

[DAG 33,955]

50 minutes ago, abw0004 said:

Here is my two cents.  I believe a school should be allowed to tell the kid he can't go to a school that is in their schedule for that upcoming year.  You have to keep in mind that is takes 8+ months to install an offense for the upcoming season.  If a kid bails, especially after Spring ball like Character and Jackson did, the former team has to scramble to change everything.  The wealth of knowledge that transfer now has on your gameplan could be detrimental.  So I am all for not letting kids transfer to schools on your schedule.  Yes I know saying that means Tray Matthews would never be on our team, but it is just how I feel.

Regarding random schools like OSU, from what I was told, OSU was recruiting Jackson to transfer.  This is what college football cannot allow.  You cannot let/reward coaches for talking to players already on a team trying to get them to transfer to join their team.

You make some good points here . I do try to feel empathy for some of these young adults , but the way Jackson has handled this and the underneath stuff that is coming out makes me not feel one iota of sympathy for him. I don't know if there is any proof to the tOSU stuff though .

[Mikey 16,550]

11 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

Here's a scenario, just for fun. A lot of schools offer merit scholarships for transfer students. Suppose the player transferring  competed for one of these scholarships and got it. Then he decided to walk on to the football team. Can his previous coach then override the academic scholarship commitee at another school and still block the transfer? 

 

If he was a "recruited athlete", then any scholarship he is put on is considered to be an athletic scholarship in his chosen sport. This is another "Bear Bryant rule", developed when Bryant put 4 top football prospects on academic scholarship at UAT. The part-time writer for the B'ham News that wrote about this and brought Bryant's "new trick" to light was fired within a week or two.

[ellitor 33,062]

Ok. Now that I've cooled off... Given a transfer means a lost roster spot that can't be filled at the position the immediate season I think it's fair they have to sit a year in every college sport. Now it seems fair also to that a transfer should not be allowed to transfer to a school that is on the original school's schedule through the remainder of the players college career. In AJ's case that is nobody in the SEC West plus Florida & Tennessee. It would suck for the original school to get beat by the player & his new team, especially if the original school didn't want the player to transfer. What about other teams in the other division in the same conference of the original school? Should transfers not be allowed to transfer to the other division due to the possibility of playing each other in the SEC Championship game? Since I'm looking at this as all sports wide I'm leaning to not allow it since in every other sport there is more overlap in playing every school through a player's career. Now on the tOSU thing I can see AU wanting to not allow if due to the possibility of playing them in the playoffs. However, the student athlete should have the opportunity to play at the highest level in their sport so transferring to a school at the same level as the original school outside the conference should be allowed IMO.

On AJ specifically I say yes to not allowing a transfer to South Carolina because I think the original school (AU) should have the right to block an inner conference transfer if they choose since the player is breaking a 4 year contract to transfer in the 1st place. As stated above I say no to being able to block a transfer to tOSU or any out of conference school.

[AU64 10,122]

Yep, that Ohio State thing just sounds nuts. The "possibility " that we might play them in a playoff ? That must be a joke . ....it would be two years from now And the odds of Auburn playing tOSU in a playoff game must be off the charts. Just sounds to me like someone got his panties in a wad wanted to make things difficult. 

[Gowebb11 9,308]

25 minutes ago, ellitor said:

Ok. Now that I've cooled off... Given a transfer means a lost roster spot that can't be filled at the position the immediate season I think it's fair they have to sit a year in every college sport. Now it seems fair also to that a transfer should not be allowed to transfer to a school that is on the original school's schedule through the remainder of the players college career. In AJ's case that is nobody in the SEC West plus Florida & Tennessee. It would suck for the original school to get beat by the player & his new team, especially if the original school didn't want the player to transfer. What about other teams in the other division in the same conference of the original school? Should transfers not be allowed to transfer to the other division due to the possibility of playing each other in the SEC Championship game? Since I'm looking at this as all sports wide I'm leaning to not allow it since in every other sport there is more overlap in playing every school through a player's career. Now on the tOSU thing I can see AU wanting to not allow if due to the possibility of playing them in the playoffs. However, the student athlete should have the opportunity to play at the highest level in their sport so transferring to a school at the same level as the original school outside the conference should be allowed IMO.

On AJ specifically I say yes to not allowing a transfer to South Carolina because I think the original school (AU) should have the right to block an inner conference transfer if they choose since the player is breaking a 4 year contract to transfer in the 1st place. As stated above I say no to being able to block a transfer to tOSU or any out of conference school.

Great perspective E. The key word that jumps out to me from your post is "contract". This topic raises great emotion and opinion from all sides, but I like to see the black and white of things. My opinion is let them go where they want and sit out a year like Corey Grant and Austin Golson did. But if these kids are signing binding contracts limiting their transfer options, then that's on them and they have no case to argue. Especially If the terms of transfer limitations are clearly defined in that contract. The NCAA needs to remove the burden from the coaches and establish a very clear, uniform, and specific process for the whole transfer issue. It seems like that is where it is heading.  WDE

[AuburnNTexas 7,127]

15 hours ago, ellitor said:

The staff spent countless hours and money recruiting him & getting him to AU. For him to repay that by wanting to be lazy & quit on the team should not be rewarded with a free pass out. Also the coaches signed the kid with the idea that he'll be a piece that will play a role on his roster. This isn't the pros where they can just replace the kid before the year starts. There is now a hole in the roster with no possibility of filling it. Kid made the decision to go to Auburn. If he wants out, there are/should be consequences.

You make a good point in this case but not all cases are about kids who didn't work hard. Sometimes teams bring in a new D or O coach and the new system doesn't fit the player. each situation is different.  If the new rule passes as described no restrictions, still sit out a year but new school can still pay your way I like it.  The sitting out a year will stop most kids for transferring without a real reason and having your education paid while sitting out won't prevent kids from poorer families from transferring for legitimate reasons. 

No rule is perfect but I want a student to have as much flexibility as a coach.  Some people talk about the buyout preventing a coach from moving. If another school really wants the coach they will find a way to pay the buyout for the coach.

 

[Barnacle 9,064]

1 hour ago, ellitor said:

Ok. Now that I've cooled off... Given a transfer means a lost roster spot that can't be filled at the position the immediate season I think it's fair they have to sit a year in every college sport. Now it seems fair also to that a transfer should not be allowed to transfer to a school that is on the original school's schedule through the remainder of the players college career. In AJ's case that is nobody in the SEC West plus Florida & Tennessee. It would suck for the original school to get beat by the player & his new team, especially if the original school didn't want the player to transfer. What about other teams in the other division in the same conference of the original school? Should transfers not be allowed to transfer to the other division due to the possibility of playing each other in the SEC Championship game? Since I'm looking at this as all sports wide I'm leaning to not allow it since in every other sport there is more overlap in playing every school through a player's career. Now on the tOSU thing I can see AU wanting to not allow if due to the possibility of playing them in the playoffs. However, the student athlete should have the opportunity to play at the highest level in their sport so transferring to a school at the same level as the original school outside the conference should be allowed IMO.

On AJ specifically I say yes to not allowing a transfer to South Carolina because I think the original school (AU) should have the right to block an inner conference transfer if they choose since the player is breaking a 4 year contract to transfer in the 1st place. As stated above I say no to being able to block a transfer to tOSU or any out of conference school.

I'm willing to go as far as making it a total in conference restriction. Still allowing them to transfer to an in-conference school and pay their own way, but being restricted as they are currently, from receiving financial aid from those institutions. That being said, I still think that needs to be a conference wide decision. It needs to be applied evenly to each situation. I still don't like giving coaches the discretion to decide which players to restrict and which players not to restrict. Make it a conference rule. No out of conference restrictions, period. That's what I'd be okay with. And, obviously I think its fair for them to sit an entire year, regardless. 

As for Ohio State, and recruiting AJ while he was still on the team. That needs to be handled differently. If that happens - if a coach is doing some shady things. That needs to be a sanction imposed upon that coach or that school. 

I still think that it is unreasonable and excessive for a coach to start restricting the player from accepting aid at an out of conference school. 

See, we really do agree...

[Barnacle 9,064]

36 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Yep, that Ohio State thing just sounds nuts. The "possibility " that we might play them in a playoff ? That must be a joke . ....it would be two years from now And the odds of Auburn playing tOSU in a playoff game must be off the charts. Just sounds to me like someone got his panties in a wad wanted to make things difficult. 

If the problem is with Urban Meyer, then the problem needs to be handled and addressed with Urban Meyer, either through the NCAA or through the conference. 

[auburnphan 6,050]

The rule was initially put in place to keep top players from smaller schools to transfer to the bama's to continue their powerhouse program at all costs.  In the quickness of implementing the rule like many of the NCAA rules there was little thought that it would affect lesser talented kids, homesick kids and all other circumstances.   

Is this correct or am I confusing it with another rule.

[ellitor 33,062]

27 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

My opinion is let them go where they want and sit out a year like Corey Grant

Corey had to pay his 1st year at AU because Saban didn't release him.

 

29 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

But if these kids are signing binding contracts limiting their transfer options, then that's on them and they have no case to argue. Especially If the terms of transfer limitations are clearly defined in that contract.

The contract I was referring to is their 4 year scholly papers to an original school. I've never heard of a transfer contract although I wouldn't be surprised if it was apart of scholly agreements.

32 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

The NCAA needs to remove the burden from the coaches and establish a very clear, uniform, and specific process for the whole transfer issue

Agreed. It's not hard to do.

[AuburnNTexas 7,127]

for those talking about a binding contarct as the excuse to limit a player I say this is a Red Herring. Many of us sign employment contracts and they are binding. However in the real world before you sign a contract you can re-negotiate the contract. If you are in a high demand field the standard contract may say things like Company pays into a 401K but the money company pays in is not your until you have worked there x number of years. If they want you bad enough you can get that changed. You can negotiate a signing bonus, etc.

In the current system any kid must sign the contract as is and there is no negotiating. That is why we need to protect the kids.

 

[ellitor 33,062]

7 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

I'm willing to go as far as making it a total in conference restriction. Still allowing them to transfer to an in-conference school and pay their own way, but being restricted as they are currently, from receiving financial aid from those institutions.

Agreed if the original school does not give a full release. If they do though then the new school can pay year 1 as they already do on Full releases.

9 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

I still think that needs to be a conference wide decision. It needs to be applied evenly to each situation. I still don't like giving coaches the discretion to decide which players to restrict and which players not to restrict. Make it a conference rule.

As Webb said it should be NCAA rule. No need to put it in conference hands.

10 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

No out of conference restrictions, period. That's what I'd be okay with. And, obviously I think its fair for them to sit an entire year, regardless. 

That's what I was getting at in my 1st post of the morning.

11 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

As for Ohio State, and recruiting AJ while he was still on the team. That needs to be handled differently. If that happens - if a coach is doing some shady things. That needs to be a sanction imposed upon that coach or that school. 

I have not heard about this but that would be tampering & should disqualify schools from getting the potential transfer. It's against NCAA rules now for a school to talk to an Athlete while at another NCAA D1 school.

[ellitor 33,062]

6 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

In the current system any kid must sign the contract as is and there is no negotiating. That is why we need to protect the kids.

This is incorrect. Players don't have to sign anything. The ones that don't though are binding when they enroll at their 1st school per NCAA rules. And the NCAA can't do the real world thing. Since the players are amateurs & not making money the contracts need to be the same for Football through the schollied ping pong team.

[Barnacle 9,064]

15 minutes ago, ellitor said:

As Webb said it should be NCAA rule. No need to put it in conference hands.

I'm fine with that. My main objective would be to take the decision out of the hands of the coaches. 

15 minutes ago, ellitor said:

Agreed if the original school does not give a full release. If they do though then the new school can pay year 1 as they already do on Full releases.

Alright, I might need you to explain this to me. I might not fully understand how this all works. 

I was under the impression that a "full release", as we know it today, allows a player to transfer to any school, and receive financial aid from that school immediately (while still having to sit out a year eligibility wise). 

Are you proposing that under a new rule, without "full release", players could not transfer to an in conference school at all? Meaning, without a "full release" Corey Grant wouldn't be able to transfer from Alabama to Auburn at any time, regardless of whether he is paying his way?

That's a situation that I hadn't considered. And, actually, I think I might be okay with that too, E. In fact, I think that might be a fair compromise. It takes the power to "restrict" away from the schools/coaches. But, it allows for coaches to grant "full release" to players like Corey, who haven't necessarily become afoul of their program.

It allows for students to transfer in conference under certain circumstances, but as a general rule, players may not transfer to in conference schools at any time during their playing career. 

Am I understanding your proposition correctly?

[AU64 10,122]

13 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

for those talking about a binding contarct as the excuse to limit a player I say this is a Red Herring. Many of us sign employment contracts and they are binding. However in the real world before you sign a contract you can re-negotiate the contract. If you are in a high demand field the standard contract may say things like Company pays into a 401K but the money company pays in is not your until you have worked there x number of years. If they want you bad enough you can get that changed. You can negotiate a signing bonus, etc.

In the current system any kid must sign the contract as is and there is no negotiating. That is why we need to protect the kids.

 

This ^ ^ ^     There is a huge imbalance of power when a kid signs to play football....on one side is a  half educated unsophisticated kid with stars in his eyes and on the other is a billion dollar enterprise presenting a contract drafted by some well paid/ high powered attorneys in a form that gives every conceivable benefit to the school(s).  Does anyone think that any coach suggests to a kid that he does not have to sign the scholarship forms ?   JMO but the idea that a kid does not have to sign a contract...man that's just not real world. 

So maybe, if we want to be sure that the incoming athlete fully understands the contract he is being asked to sign, the HS student athlete should be provided with an attorney to negotiate in his behalf ...because otherwise, I challenge anyone to find an example where an athletic prospect was able to get a school to change or delete some terms of it's standard scholarship paperwork as part of a "negotiated" process.

This is totally a one-side deal....

 

[ellitor 33,062]

6 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

I was under the impression that a "full release", as we know it today, allows a player to transfer to any school, and receive financial aid from that school immediately (while still having to sit out a year eligibility wise). 

Correct

6 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

Are you proposing that under a new rule, without "full release", players could not transfer to an in conference school at all? Meaning, without a "full release" Corey Grant wouldn't be able to transfer from Alabama to Auburn at any time, regardless of whether he is paying his way?

That's a situation that I hadn't considered. And, actually, I think I might be okay with that too, E. In fact, I think that might be a fair compromise. It takes the power to "restrict" away from the schools/coaches. But, it allows for coaches to grant "full release" to players like Corey, who haven't necessarily become afoul of their program.

It allows for students to transfer in conference under certain circumstances, but as a general rule, players may not transfer to in conference schools at any time during their playing career. 

Am I understanding your proposition correctly?

Yes.

[Barnacle 9,064]

Just now, AU64 said:

This ^ ^ ^     There is a huge imbalance of power when a kid signs to play football....on one side is a  half educated unsophisticated kid with stars in his eyes and on the other is a billion dollar enterprise presenting a contract drafted by some well paid/ high powered attorneys in a form that gives every conceivable benefit to the school(s).  Does anyone think that any coach suggests to a kid that he does not have to sign the scholarship forms ?   JMO but the idea that a kid does not have to sign a contract...man that's just not real world. 

So maybe, if we want to be sure that the incoming athlete fully understands the contract he is being asked to sign, the HS student athlete should be provided with an attorney to negotiate in his behalf ...because otherwise, I challenge anyone to find an example where an athletic prospect was able to get a school to change or delete some terms of it's standard scholarship paperwork as part of a "negotiated" process.

This is totally a one-side deal....

 

Yeah, I'm unaware of any bargaining power that a student might have, other than - I'm going to another school. 

That being said, I do think that transfer restrictions need to be spelled out before a kid enrolls, or signs a letter of intent, scholarship - whatever. In other words, I think kids need to know, if you sign with us - you will be restricted from transferring from transferring to the following schools, and it's not subject to change. A coach can't decide to add schools to that list. 

[ellitor 33,062]

5 minutes ago, AU64 said:

This ^ ^ ^     There is a huge imbalance of power when a kid signs to play football....on one side is a  half educated unsophisticated kid with stars in his eyes and on the other is a billion dollar enterprise presenting a contract drafted by some well paid/ high powered attorneys in a form that gives every conceivable benefit to the school(s).  Does anyone think that any coach suggests to a kid that he does not have to sign the scholarship forms ?   JMO but the idea that a kid does not have to sign a contract...man that's just not real world. 

So maybe, if we want to be sure that the incoming athlete fully understands the contract he is being asked to sign, the HS student athlete should be provided with an attorney to negotiate in his behalf ...because otherwise, I challenge anyone to find an example where an athletic prospect was able to get a school to change or delete some terms of it's standard scholarship paperwork as part of a "negotiated" process.

This is totally a one-side deal....

Respectfully disagree on your premise. This isn't the real job world we are talking about & these kids aren't being paid nor employed..

[Barnacle 9,064]

Just now, ellitor said:

Yes.

I can get on board with that. So long as its a blanket rule, from the NCAA down - you cannot transfer in conference without full release. That's a good thought. 

[Barnacle 9,064]

@AU64 Hockey players get "family advisors"