Transfer rule - This would be stupid

[Chesusdog]

The SEC is getting killed in this environment, and the answer is not to just outspend the B1G because that will never be possible.

This right here is the biggest contributor to why, in the modern era of unlimited free agency, the Big 10 was able to catch up with and eclipse the SEC. Sure we have some schools down here with a lot of money, but Big 10 schools have much, much more to spend.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Like others have pointed out if no one else goes by that rule then you’re putting SEC teams at a disadvantage. It certainly doesn’t help Mississippi State.

If it is structured incorrectly or rolled out too quickly, it could certainly present a disadvantage. But if schools have enough of a heads up, they will be able to structure their NIL and revenue share agreements in such a way that it would be all but impossible for poaching to occur. Michigan isn’t coming after Alabama’s back-up LT if they have to buy out $3 million worth of NIL and revenue share money before they could even begin to pay the player himself.

The bottom line is that this wouldn’t be an option on the table unless it was something that multiple coaches and AD’s wanted. Sankey didn’t just pull it out of his asś.

As far as what’s best for MSU, I mean how are we doing now? The answer to that is “not great”. We have what might be the #1 overall NFL draft pick in 2028 at QB, and the unanimous ceiling for the team is about 8-4. That’s embarrassing. We had that same record with Chris 17ing Relf having to navigate a murderer’s row of a schedule in 2010 that was way more difficult than this year’s version. This current environment is hopeless for us. Both the SEC and MSU need a model that is more friendly for development and continuity.

 

[patdog]

Michigan isn’t coming after Alabama’s back-up LT if they have to buy out $3 million worth of NIL and revenue share money before they could even begin to pay the player himself.

Neither is another SEC school even without this rule.

 

[thekimmer]

At one time, a sit-out year for transfers was an NCAA rule and the SEC had a TWO year sit out rule within the conference so this is kind of a throw back to those days.

I do get the dilemma. You want to give players some autonomy but for the good of the game we need to regulate this mercenary culture somehow. Perhaps limit players to one unrestricted transfer during their eligibility (any others require a release) and limit teams to the number of transfers they can have in a given year with that number reduced based on how successful your previous season was.

One thing is for sure. The tactic of teams running to pet judges to get an injunction to do whatever they want has to STOP!

 

[8dog]

This right here is the biggest contributor to why, in the modern era of unlimited free agency, the Big 10 was able to catch up with and eclipse the SEC. Sure we have some schools down here with a lot of money, but Big 10 schools have much, much more to spend.

I don’t think it’s really that. Ohio State is one of the 3 best programs of all time. They have always won big. Michigan is a great program that with the right coach in Harbaugh can be up there as a top 10 program. They went to the 4 team playoff in 2021 (no NIL) 22 (barely any NIL) and 23. And then Indiana just hired a phenomenal coach.

The rest of the Big Ten is just men. Wisconsin- once a power - is mid at best. Penn State can’t ever seem to find its ceiling. Then they were able to add Oregon by expansion. Look at the HS recruiting rankings. They look about like they always have.

Then also the best program in the SEC lost the greatest coach of all time. Powers like Florida and LSU sputtered with bad hires.

It’s not a wallet whipping. It’s about hiring. Because once you hire the right guy, the money flows freely.

 

[patdog]

Perhaps limit players to one unrestricted transfer during their eligibility (any others require a release)

One thing the last decade plus has proved is once you start giving releases for any reason, soon enough they'll be giving them for any reason at all. That's what I like about the new 5 years to play 5 rule. No exceptions. If you're going to have a 1-time transfer rule (and I think you should if you're not going to have a sit out 1 year rule), you can't have any exceptions.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Neither is another SEC school even without this rule.

True, but there is no incentive at all for the schools to offer that type of compensation without the rule. Why risk it for a guy that may not pan out?

Right now, the plan everybody has is simply “let’s pull together as much money as we can, and pay it out via 1 year deals to everybody to make this year’s team the best it can be”. That’s it. It’s pure madness. Eliminating intraconference transfers forces schools to be more strategic and selective, and not just throw both money and players into the garbage every single offseason.

 

[patdog]

True, but there is no incentive at all for the schools to offer that type of compensation without the rule. Why risk it for a guy that may not pan out?

So why create a rule that's going to make you pay more for your players? It actually won't anyway. A school is going to pay what they think the player is worth, or whatever it will take to keep him whichever is less. They're not going to pay more just because he can't transfer to another SEC school.

 

[Perd Hapley]

So why create a rule that's going to make you pay more for your players? It actually won't anyway. A school is going to pay what they think the player is worth, or whatever it will take to keep him whichever is less. They're not going to pay more just because he can't transfer to another SEC school.

It doesn’t make you pay more. It makes you pay for longer to the same players, to encourage retention and continuity.

Pay a guy $1 million in 2026, pay his replacement $1 million in 2027, then pay that guy’s replacement $1 million in 2028.

Or, pay one guy $2 million over 2 years or $3 million over 3 years - structured to where he gets most of the money when he’s actually playing meaningful snaps. If its a HS kid, do $500k freshmen year, $1 million sophomore year, $1.5 million junior year. It’s the same money as the above example ($3 million total), but less required up front, and you’re not paying much to guys to sit on the bench.

 

[patdog]

It doesn’t make you pay more. It makes you pay for longer to the same players, to encourage retention and continuity.

Pay a guy $1 million in 2026, pay his replacement $1 million in 2027, then pay that guy’s replacement $1 million in 2028.

Or, pay one guy $2 million over 2 years or $3 million over 3 years - structured to where he gets most of the money when he’s actually playing meaningful snaps. If its a HS kid, do $500k freshmen year, $1 million sophomore year, $1.5 million junior year. It’s the same money as the above example ($3 million total), but less required up front, and you’re not paying much to guys to sit on the bench.

More, longer, whatever. Either way it's more of a commitment for the school. And if the school thinks it's worth it, they'd be doing it today even without this new rule. Be very careful with long-term commitments though. You might wind up with another Bryce Underwood situation on your hands.

 

[Perd Hapley]

More, longer, whatever. Either way it's more of a commitment for the school.

Depends. You can also have mutual release language in these contracts to where if the school agrees, they can still transfer within the SEC, or elsewhere. That takes a lot of risk out for the school if a guy is talented, but can’t see the field at a Bama, UGA, etc. Keeps the school from having to keep paying a guy who isn’t playing, and lets the player get a similar deal elsewhere that he can get on the field.

And if the school thinks it's worth it, they'd be doing it today even without this new rule.

The thing is that it’s not worth it today for the schools or the players. There’s no incentive for it at present time due to the rapid price acceleration for the players, and the sheer convenience of plug and play replacements for the schools.

The environment is going to continue this way until somebody that matters decides to try and change it. And there are only 3 somebodies that matter: the SEC, the B1G, and Congress. One of those 3 certainly isn’t going to do a damn thing about it, and another is greatly profiting off the current set up. The only one left is the SEC.

Be very careful with long-term commitments though. You might wind up with another Bryce Underwood situation on your hands.

You mean long term commitments like 4 year scholarships, which were the standard up until about 5 years ago?

 

[BTCMoonBoy]

I’ll allow it

 

[8dog]

More, longer, whatever. Either way it's more of a commitment for the school. And if the school thinks it's worth it, they'd be doing it today even without this new rule. Be very careful with long-term commitments though. You might wind up with another Bryce Underwood situation on your hands.

Pat - here is how I’m gonna make your financial life much better. I’m gonna lower your salary significantly. That will force you to be more strategic with your spending and budgeting and you will come out ahead. Congrats and be sure to subscribe to my podcast.