NCAA Makes 2 Huge Rule Changes

[AUBwins 10,064]

UnfortunatelyI can see even less playing time for the scout players.  If 3rd string players are all the redshirt players, those walk on players may not get their reward for their unheralded hard work. I like to think coaches will still let them play. 

Overall love the new redshirt rule

[DAG 33,955]

53 minutes ago, AUBwins said:

Maybe talking about Bo playing some his freshman year. 

yep

[AUsince72 11,084]

I'm glad we all feel good that players can transfer at will and play in meaningless bowl games for starters who don't want to play anymore without penalty but the important question is have they proposed a rule yet to make it illegal to run the same dive play 17 times in a row?

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,287]

8 hours ago, lionheartkc said:

The key to the transfer rule is the NCAA really enforcing the contact rule. If they are lax on that, then the less scrupulous coaches with booster networks who are skilled at getting away with breaking the rules are going to start dynasty building with transfers.

 

[gr82be 14,401]

1 hour ago, AUsince72 said:

I'm glad we all feel good that players can transfer at will and play in meaningless bowl games for starters who don't want to play anymore without penalty but the important question is have they proposed a rule yet to make it illegal to run the same dive play 17 times in a row?

It wouldn't pass in the SEC if the coaches voted. One thinks it's a good idea and the other 13 would vote in support of him. 

[lionheartkc 6,150]

1 hour ago, WDE_OxPx_2010 said:

 

Case in point.

[ellitor 33,062]

4 hours ago, DAG said:

I can’t wait to see how this will work with someone like Bo Nix.

I can’t wait to see Joey truck some guy for an important touchdown this year.

[ellitor 33,062]

4 hours ago, around4ever said:

What makes you think Bo will want to transfer?

[mustache eagle 2,388]

18 hours ago, ellitor said:

The Power 5 conferences will vote next week on proposals that will allow schools to cancel financial aid to athletes once they inform their current school of their intention to transfer at the end of an academic term.

... This is the last sentence in the first article in the OP ... this was not discussed much in this thread ... this makes the entire idea of this new transfer rule remarkably horrific.  I cant believe this wasnt discussed more.  It makes the entire new rule bad bad bad.  Unhappy football player walks in to coaches office and says coach i'm thinking about transferring, then BOOM, no more scholarship.  period.  the articles sucks cuz it doesnt say, but it infers they lose the money immediately? (thats the way it comes across to me)  

If they lose their financial aid at the end of the academic term, then ... well ... duh!  Why would you write it that way?  therefore I infer they lose money on that day in October they say they want to transfer?  kicked out on your ear with nothing but the school putting your name in a database and you not having been able to discuss with any other coaches beforehand.  am i off base?

[DAG 33,955]

11 hours ago, AUBwins said:

UnfortunatelyI can see even less playing time for the scout players.  If 3rd string players are all the redshirt players, those walk on players may not get their reward for their unheralded hard work. I like to think coaches will still let them play. 

Overall love the new redshirt rule

Walk on players reward is practicing with the squad and getting to wear their team’s perspective jersey. If they get to actually play a snap that is just icing. 

[ellitor 33,062]

34 minutes ago, mustache eagle said:

the articles sucks cuz it doesnt say, but it infers they lose the money immediately?

Lol. No it doesn't. You quoted the part where it says the end of the current academic term. I would argue the school should have a week instead of 2 days to put the kid in the transfer database so he can think things over real good.

 

40 minutes ago, mustache eagle said:

f they lose their financial aid at the end of the academic term, then ... well ... duh!  Why would you write it that way?  therefore I infer they lose money on that day in October they say they want to transfer?  kicked out on your ear with nothing but the school putting your name in a database and you not having been able to discuss with any other coaches beforehand.  am i off base?

Not sure how you got it that way but ok.

Then again Crepea wrote it so yeah.

[ellitor 33,062]

11 minutes ago, DAG said:

Walk on players reward is practicing with the squad and getting to wear their team’s perspective jersey. If they get to actually play a snap that is just icing. 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

38 minutes ago, mustache eagle said:

... This is the last sentence in the first article in the OP ... this was not discussed much in this thread ... this makes the entire idea of this new transfer rule remarkably horrific.  I cant believe this wasnt discussed more.  It makes the entire new rule bad bad bad.  Unhappy football player walks in to coaches office and says coach i'm thinking about transferring, then BOOM, no more scholarship.  period.  the articles sucks cuz it doesnt say, but it infers they lose the money immediately? (thats the way it comes across to me)  

If they lose their financial aid at the end of the academic term, then ... well ... duh!  Why would you write it that way?  therefore I infer they lose money on that day in October they say they want to transfer?  kicked out on your ear with nothing but the school putting your name in a database and you not having been able to discuss with any other coaches beforehand.  am i off base?

I would think there's a big gap between a guy saying "Hey Coach, I'm thinking about transferring" and officially turning in his notice. And if there are some petty coaches out there who look at it differently, well, they're already out there. Paul Johnson at Ga Tech comes to mind. 

As for the financial aid, I suppose I don't understand the confusion. It reads to me that they would lose their scholarship at the end of the term, not immediately. And, of course, that term's tuition was quite likely already paid, anyway. 

Agree with @ellitor about the 2-day thing. Good point about a longer "waiting period" to protect the player as well as the school. Curious to know their rationale there. 

[AUld fAUx@ 2,584]

47 minutes ago, mustache eagle said:

... This is the last sentence in the first article in the OP ... this was not discussed much in this thread ... this makes the entire idea of this new transfer rule remarkably horrific.  I cant believe this wasnt discussed more.  It makes the entire new rule bad bad bad.  Unhappy football player walks in to coaches office and says coach i'm thinking about transferring, then BOOM, no more scholarship.  period.  the articles sucks cuz it doesnt say, but it infers they lose the money immediately? (thats the way it comes across to me)  

If they lose their financial aid at the end of the academic term, then ... well ... duh!  Why would you write it that way?  therefore I infer they lose money on that day in October they say they want to transfer?  kicked out on your ear with nothing but the school putting your name in a database and you not having been able to discuss with any other coaches beforehand.  am i off base?

Good (?) catch.

Missed it 1st time around.

If passed (and correctly interpreted), I'd find it a downside.

[DAG 33,955]

8 minutes ago, ellitor said:

 

Yep I was just thinking about this movie. And even in this dramatized movie , the DC doesn’t want him to play a single snap, his all American players essentially force his hand on the issue haha

[AUsince72 11,084]

57 minutes ago, mustache eagle said:

... This is the last sentence in the first article in the OP ... this was not discussed much in this thread ... this makes the entire idea of this new transfer rule remarkably horrific.  I cant believe this wasnt discussed more.  It makes the entire new rule bad bad bad.  Unhappy football player walks in to coaches office and says coach i'm thinking about transferring, then BOOM, no more scholarship.  period.  the articles sucks cuz it doesnt say, but it infers they lose the money immediately? (thats the way it comes across to me)  

If they lose their financial aid at the end of the academic term, then ... well ... duh!  Why would you write it that way?  therefore I infer they lose money on that day in October they say they want to transfer?  kicked out on your ear with nothing but the school putting your name in a database and you not having been able to discuss with any other coaches beforehand.  am i off base?

 

15 minutes ago, ellitor said:

Lol. No it doesn't. You quoted the part where it says the end of the current academic term. I would argue the school should have a week instead of 2 days to put the kid in the transfer database so he can think things over real good.

 

Not sure how you got it that way but ok.

Then again Crepea wrote it so yeah.

In my unexpert opinion, I think the end of the article falls victim to bad grammar/punctuation.  It IS Crepea after-all...

I think it should read like this: 

59 minutes ago, mustache eagle said:

The Power 5 conferences will vote next week on proposals that will allow schools to cancel financial aid to athletes, once they inform their current school of their intention to transfer, at the end of an academic term.

Note the new commas...

I believe they're saying that the financial aid would be cancelled at the end of the academic term since the player can quit whenever he wants.

[DAG 33,955]

8 hours ago, ellitor said:

Hopefully somebody is there to watch over  @GwillMac6  safety if Bo ever transferred or decided to decommit (I call no jinx).

[keesler 5,923]

1 hour ago, mustache eagle said:

... This is the last sentence in the first article in the OP ... this was not discussed much in this thread ... this makes the entire idea of this new transfer rule remarkably horrific.  I cant believe this wasnt discussed more.  It makes the entire new rule bad bad bad.  Unhappy football player walks in to coaches office and says coach i'm thinking about transferring, then BOOM, no more scholarship.  period.  the articles sucks cuz it doesnt say, but it infers they lose the money immediately? (thats the way it comes across to me)  

If they lose their financial aid at the end of the academic term, then ... well ... duh!  Why would you write it that way?  therefore I infer they lose money on that day in October they say they want to transfer?  kicked out on your ear with nothing but the school putting your name in a database and you not having been able to discuss with any other coaches beforehand.  am i off base?

I'm glad you mentioned this, I posted earlier in this thread that IMO it's a huge risk to the student-athlete.

Supposedly there should be zero communication between the student-athlete and another coaching staff (per NCAA rules) until the kid makes his intentions known to his coach, at which time his name is entered into the database and he's on the market.  Once he tells his coach he wants to transfer,  his scholarship is revoked at the end of that academic term.

If I were a parent of a player getting a full ride scholarship with room/board, tuition, books/fees, tutoring, healthcare, etc AND a monthly stipend - I'd be very concerned if my kid wanted to transfer to another program.  

 

 

 

[gr82be 14,401]

Conferences can still make rules that are more restrictive than the new national rule..  This seemed odd to me. How restrictive could they get? I guess we have to get Saban's input and thoughts on restrictions first. 

[keesler 5,923]

1 minute ago, gr82be said:

Conferences can still make rules that are more restrictive than the new national rule..  This seemed odd to me. How restrictive could they get? I guess we have to get Saban's input and thoughts on restrictions first. 

Saban gave his thoughts on the SEC's grad-transfer rule a couple of weeks ago, he thought each member school should adhere to the rule that was in place.  The SEC voted and the rule was changed, now graduate transfers are unrestricted and can transfer within the conference.   

[McLoofus 35,182]

10 minutes ago, keesler said:

I'm glad you mentioned this, I posted earlier in this thread that IMO it's a huge risk to the student-athlete.

Supposedly there should be zero communication between the student-athlete and another coaching staff (per NCAA rules) until the kid makes his intentions known to his coach, at which time his name is entered into the database and he's on the market.  Once he tells his coach he wants to transfer,  his scholarship is revoked at the end of that academic term.

If I were a parent of a player getting a full ride scholarship with room/board, tuition, books/fees, tutoring, healthcare, etc AND a monthly stipend - I'd be very concerned if my kid wanted to transfer to another program.  

Honest question: what's the difference between that and the current set-up? Don't schools already terminate the scholarship once a kid says he's transferring? 

[ellitor 33,062]

10 minutes ago, gr82be said:

How restrictive could they get?

As restrictive as it was before yesterday.

[ellitor 33,062]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Honest question: what's the difference between that and the current set-up? Don't schools already terminate the scholarship once a kid says he's transferring?  

[keesler 5,923]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Honest question: what's the difference between that and the current set-up? Don't schools already terminate the scholarship once a kid says he's transferring? 

I'm sure I'm over thinking the whole thing as someone mentioned earlier.  

Prior to this rule change, I felt it was more discretionary and the communication lines didn't carry a Level II infraction from the NCAA like they do now.  The new rule restricts prior communication and carries a heavy penalty, which seems like it would limit the kid from knowing in advance where he wants to go and if the program will take him.

 

[AUld fAUx@ 2,584]

49 minutes ago, AUsince72 said:

 

In my unexpert opinion, I think the end of the article falls victim to bad grammar/punctuation.  It IS Crepea after-all...

I think it should read like this: 

Note the new commas...

I believe they're saying that the financial aid would be cancelled at the end of the academic term since the player can quit whenever he wants.

Two commas would, indeed, have removed any ambiguity.

NYT article makes things somewhat (?) clearer, but retains/introduces some uncertainty, as well.

"The NCAA said legislation that governs when a Power Five school can reduce or cancel financial aid for an athlete may be looked at next week. Currently, a student's notification of intent to transfer at the end of a term is not a listed reason a school can use to cancel aid. The so-called autonomy conferences will consider two different proposals to allow schools to cancel the aid."