https://www.espn.com/college-sports...etic-directors-support-one-transfer-exemption.
Not a bad idea at face value but teams could rise and fall so quickly.
Not a bad idea at face value but teams could rise and fall so quickly.
1 Time Transfer Rule
- Thread starter RedMyMind
- Start date
Hey JD Speilman, Dabo here. We need you down here in Clemson, now have us some real generous car dealers down here that have put together an outstanding package for you to look at.
We are talking commercials, radio spots, autograph sessions. We believe you'll like the dollars they are prepared to give you for your NIL.
Come on down and join a championship team, you're the only piece we're missing this fall due to Jimmy Joe hurting his knee and all.
We are talking commercials, radio spots, autograph sessions. We believe you'll like the dollars they are prepared to give you for your NIL.
Come on down and join a championship team, you're the only piece we're missing this fall due to Jimmy Joe hurting his knee and all.
The game is on a real slippery slope. I'm not opposed to players getting a cut of the money they generate, but there is not going to be any equality in it.
Cheaters are going to cheat and the NCAA is a nut less sack with no way to put sanctions on anyone.
I truly believe this will destroy college athletics.
Cheaters are going to cheat and the NCAA is a nut less sack with no way to put sanctions on anyone.
I truly believe this will destroy college athletics.
I think the idea of transferring and being immediately eligible is a bad one. But at the present, immediate eligibility has been awarded to some high profile guys (Justin Fields got immediately eligible at Ohio State for hearing a racial slur in Georgia) while nearly everyone else has had to sit out. So maybe it would be more fair.
The NCAA and how it does things is why I tell play kids, grandkids, students and players “fair is a four letter word, don’t use it around me .”
I think we can all move on with the JD Speilman transferring thing. He’s obviously not playing for anyone else other then the Huskers.
So if this a new rule how many players can transfer out in one year if they are disgruntled with their playing time?
Had anyone thought about what kind of problem this would cause if you have a over abundance of players leaving.
Had anyone thought about what kind of problem this would cause if you have a over abundance of players leaving.
Last edited:
I agree, and if there is a limit per class/per year, how does one go about deciding if there is a surplus wanting to leave?
They're gonna need to set up an auction site like eBay. Kids sign up and go to the highest bidder.
I am probably the odd one here. I would keep the one year sit out rule and actually make it stronger, not weaker. Close the loop on all the exceptions.
If people think kids changing their minds before signing day is an issue, just wait for the mess if this gets done.
If people think kids changing their minds before signing day is an issue, just wait for the mess if this gets done.
What about still making them sit a year (and strengthen that, virtually no exceptions) but for the first transfer it pauses your eligibility clock so you don't lose your redshirt year, or have to use a year if you already redshirted? Seems like it would be a decent middle ground.
Another thought, if they allow one for everyone, the recruiting never quits. Teams would keep going after a kid asking them if they are happy, getting PT, coaching changes, etc. If you are a really good player on a bad team, why not go your last year (not a grad transfer) to a contender if they express any interest. I see a big can of worms. It all sounds good until YOUR star players are leaving.
The simple solution to me would be to allow each team a certain number of transfers who are eligible immediately, and the rest have to sit out a year. So say every team gets 2 transfers who can play immediately, the rest have to sit out a year. That would make it fair for everyone, without making it a complete free-agent free-for-all.
The old addage...for every action there is a reaction comes to mind....this would be a disaster for all but a handful of teams and i'm not a fan of giving a 19 or 20 year old kid this much leverage.
How would you work that out? A first come bases? Don’t see how that would work.
I think there should only be a couple reasons one should be allowed to transfer and not sit out. #1 If the HC is fired. Lets face it these kids commit to the coaches, not to the university or the fans. Many have had a relationship with the coaches since soph, juniors in highschool. If that is yanked away, they should have the right to find somewhere they are comfortable.
#2 If they have a major death or sickness in their immediate family and they want to be closer to home. In that case the transfer must actually be closer to home. Can't say, Oh my Mom is really sick in Kentucky, and then transfer to USC.
Those are it. All else would have to sit out a year. Otherwise it is going to be come absolute insanity. Kids will be transferring like crazy.
Last edited:
I am all for people getting opportunities. I think it’s great for kids to be able to play immediately and not lose a year of eligibility. Also it keeps consistency without loopholes, exceptions/waivers. But seriously if a kid doesn’t feel valued go somewhere else. And like anything Nebraska will benefit from some and will hurt on others
Until it actually goes into play you don’t know that for a fact..I agree you shouldn’t lose eligibility..
Like husker2612 said it should be a reason that the Head or position coach left the school not that another school persuades you to come to team B so you can start because team A isn’t starting you...
How do people who oppose the rule rationalize that 20 other college sports (Volleyball, Track/Field, Swimming, Golf, Tennis, LaCrosse, etc) allow for immediate transfer eligibility.
Why shouldn't Football and Basketball players (sports with a higher % of minorities), be afforded the same rights?
Why shouldn't Football and Basketball players (sports with a higher % of minorities), be afforded the same rights?
Last edited:
I didn’t realize you can transfer in Volleyball without sitting but I also can tell you all those other college sports(except Volleyball) are non revenue sports..
For F sake please tell me you are some how not turning this into a race thing. Might be because those 2 sports account for 90% of public interest and university revenue stream from sports. Having players jumping ship non stop would cause bigger issues and and problems with stability compared to other sports. Zero to do with race. lol
I agree that this is not a proposal motivated by race, but dude what are the bigger problems? The schools will benefit just as much as players. If a player isn’t happy or is a detriment to team coaches can weed them out and even assist them to transfer to another school. If it hurts anyone it’s the small schools that could lose star players to powerhouses. Idk about u but I’m ok with that.
Who said anything about jumping ship non-stop? The rule is to allow each person one time.
Saying the new rule would cause issues, a problem with stability, a decline in revenue, etc.. is pure speculation.
Just depends LSU wouldn’t release the girl that transferred to Nebraska she had to sit out a year
The reason I like college more than the pros is you could still make an argument for amateurs vs amateurs.
NFL is just businessmen in athletic gear. Only watch a couple games per season.
College I watch dozens of games per season.
The USA looks nothing like it did when I was a kid. And yes, it's gone in the wrong direction.
As soon as 2 transfers have played a snap in a game, no other transfers would be eligible to play the rest of the season.
If you have an over abundance of players leaving, then you have bigger problems
So, what would stop Alabama from telling a kid, we dont have a scholarship for you this year, so if you want to play, go play at school x, but we have a "possible opening next year, hint hint wink wink".
Kid goes to a school for a year, knowing he is only there for a year before he moves on to his top choice who was out of room.
Of course, there is a gamble to that, but hey
Kid goes to a school for a year, knowing he is only there for a year before he moves on to his top choice who was out of room.
Of course, there is a gamble to that, but hey
OK, then let's make athletic scholarships a 4-Year Contract that players have to sign, and if they want to transfer then they or their new school has to pay their old school a buyout. Otherwise, this is a false equivalence.
I think it is a horrible idea. Would turn into absolute chaos. If kids no longer have to worry about having to sit out a year there is nothing to stop them from transferring if they don't win the starting job year 1. It is going to be almost impossible for programs like Nebraska, where keeping talented depth is already an issue. Good luck now keeping any talent that doesn't start right away.
I think the ONLY reason where a kid should be aloud to transfer is a coaching change, or a death or illness in the immediate family.
I think the ONLY reason where a kid should be aloud to transfer is a coaching change, or a death or illness in the immediate family.