New NCAA Legislation - one-time transfers immediately eligble
- Thread starter wrapit
- Start date
We are now officially a JUCO for Alabama, LSU, Georgia, etc. Outstanding. What little parity college football and basketball had left is now officially dead.
I think the benefit goes more towards us with the amount of talent they stockpile, many of whom will not see the field (Lashlee, Shavers, etc) that could seek more PT by coming our way than our folks going that way and having to fight with other recruits.
I think we will benefit more as far as the amount of meaningful snaps we get from transfers. On the flip side, you blue blood programs should never have a significant weak link because of their ability to plug gaps.
I don't like it.
The usual downfall of the traditional powers is a failure to develop a QB. Now, they will no longer have that problem. The top of the heap will be much harder to break into for any given year.
Jamie Newman to UGA will happen every year, and likely for multiple Top 10 programs.
The usual downfall of the traditional powers is a failure to develop a QB. Now, they will no longer have that problem. The top of the heap will be much harder to break into for any given year.
Jamie Newman to UGA will happen every year, and likely for multiple Top 10 programs.
EVERY stinking rule the NCAA considers will just make the elite more elite and diminish competitive balance in college football. Things like NLI and immediate eligibility all make it easier for elite programs to hoard talent and process out players as needed. Things like cutting back on the number of signees per year and reducing total scholarships allowed plus making ALL non-graduate transfers sit out for one year (like it always was in the past) are things that would bring much more competitive balance to the college game. Right now, in FBS, there are only about 7 or 8 programs capable of winning the NC. And only about 15 to 20 capable of making the 4 team playoffs. That is garbage considering there are 130 teams. College football is the most non-competitive popular sport out there. Even with rule changes the elite programs would still be the best but at least you could cut down the talent gap, by spreading out more of the top talent, to something that would make things somewhat more competitive and give a few more programs at least a slim chance to play for something other than just a post-season meaningless exhibition bowl game.
Spur of the moment comment here w/out thinking through all the scenarios but if a head coach that recruited you leaves your school then I think the player should be able to leave also. But, if somebody just doesn't like it because they got beat out by someone else and wants to go sulk at another school then I think they should still have to wait a year.
Doesn't bother me. Players go where they want to go.....if anything, this will cut down on the number of 'sales jobs' being done on them, because the coach knows they can just leave very easily if they don't like it. Players will choosing the school based on what is there. And now they can leave if a coach leaves. For the most part, again, this will only affect a small minority.
Coaches are making way too much money to have the control they have over the game. Administrations have been making way too much off players (and fans) to have all the rules skewed in their favor.
These are simple changes, and through effective regulation, could be very good things for college sports.
Coaches are making way too much money to have the control they have over the game. Administrations have been making way too much off players (and fans) to have all the rules skewed in their favor.
These are simple changes, and through effective regulation, could be very good things for college sports.
There's only one rule change that could help MSU and that's cutting scholarships by at least 10.
Most of rules are making it harder to process players, if I understand correctly. That's an easy method of regulation to prevent just what you say. If Saban wants to process someone, make him effectively find them another team.
I guess I don't see how that would help. There are still plenty of teams more than happy to take Saban's rejects. Just because they aren't good enough for Saban doesn't mean they aren't really good players.
Players go where they want anyway and, even if they have to sit out, are nearly always on full scholarship. The only question is whether to impose the sit out rule on them which is the only thing between what we have now and total free agency every year. I don't even mind if the sit out year doesn't count against total years of eligibility as long as they have to sit out.
Compare the extremely limited impact we’ve gotten from Lashley / Shavers with the devastating impact of having a Dak Prescott transfer to Alabama for his final season so he could win a title, or if Nick Fitzgerald followed Mullen to UF. It’s a bad trade-off for have-not schools like us who are in the middle of a hotbed of multiple Top 10-15 programs. Recruiting wise, we’ll have to grease the wheels not only to sign guys initially, but also again to get them to stay.
So basically, you want the status quo to remain the same. Me too. Unfortunately, the “sit-out” year is about to be a thing of the past.
And THIS is what every Sports Media operation wants. They don’t want upstarts (see MSU 2014) rising to the Top of the College Football world. Oh, they write about it and give lip service, but they couldn’t have been more happy when Bama best us that year. Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, Georgia, Oklahoma, USC, Oregon, Penn State and even Miami, LSU, Michigan, Texas and Tennessee draw a lot of eyeballs to their story lines and they cannot wait for those that are struggling to get back up. They need the poor old MSU, Vandy, Missouri, Ole Miss, Kentucky programs to go back to being guaranteed wins for the SEC Elites so that there will continue to be no loss or 1 loss SEC teams and they want the same in the other conferences. But imagine if State Schools, public and private, were only allowed 70 scholarships AND they could only recruit within their State’s borders?
Yeah, I know it seems ridiculous, but it would probably cut D-down to about 100 schools, where it should be. Alabama is big enough for 3 D1schools but would probably only have the 2, Alabama and Auburn. Georgia would probably have 3, Florida-5, California- 7, Texas-7, and so on, but the Dakotas, Montana, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, Alaska and Idaho, still would not have any D1 schools, Arkansas, would have to split the State with Ark State, Missouri and Nebraska, probably would still have only 1. And yes, I know it is an absurd thought, limiting HS football players choices, but it would be interesting to delve into how that would look parity wise.
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State Week 7 Preview: LSU Players to Know
-
02
Maroon and White
"We're in shape for it": Mississippi State S Kendel Dolby on LSU's tempo and offensive challenge
-
03
Maroon and White Football
"Everybody wants the same thing": Mississippi State's Magee and Prudhomme speak on offense changing gears through open week
-
04
Maroon and White
Mississippi State G Josh Hubbard selected Preseason All-SEC First Team
-
05
Maroon and White Football
Points of Focus: Mississippi State HC Jeff Lebby speaks on Week 7 "Reset"