Would This Be Good For MSU?

[ShotgunDawg]

What do you guys think? Would this be a positive or negative for MSU?

I think this would be good for MSU. I realize many would worry that our best player would leave for Bama, but my life experience leads me to believe that the vast majority of people choose security over fantasy.

Meaning, I think players that are already starting and contributing are far more likely to stay with their teammates rather than chase a potential ring somewhere else where playing time isn?t guaranteed.

I think its far more likely that players leave the blue bloods. Problem is, does that mean the blue bloods could potentially sign about 40 croots a year?

https://twitter.com/brucefeldmancfb/status/1152227532651028480?s=21

[BuckyIsAB****]

They are already just about able to play as soon as they transfer. I think every single one of them that did this offseason ended up being able to play year immediately

[TUSK]

Love it.

[Leeshouldveflanked]

Yep....it would hurt the Bama’s of the world and help the MSU’s...

[Quaoarsking]

Drop the sitout rule altogether, but make transfers in count for double scholarships or something. There's no point in having a rule if there are so many exceptions, especially for the blue bloods.

[Todd4State]

Drop the sitout rule altogether, but make transfers in count for double scholarships or something. There's no point in having a rule if there are so many exceptions, especially for the blue bloods.

Do they currently count against the signing class as it is? I thought they did?

[sleepy dawg]

I like it. Drop the grad transfer rule though and just lump them all into 1. Everybody gets 1 redo this way. Any 17 year old can be duped once by a slick talking coach. Get duped twice and you have to pay a much steeper price.

[Cooterpoot]

Means Bama etc. could recruit our best players too. One big loss for us is far worse than them losing a bench warmer.
Look at what OK had done in softball with free transfers for all.

[ShotgunDawg]

Means Bama etc. could recruit our best players too. One big loss for us is far worse than them losing a bench warmer.
Look at what OK had done in softball with free transfers for all.

Agree but I don’t see many starters leaving.

Why would they? If you’re a starter for MSU and good enough to play for Bama, you’re likely only a year or 2 from the NFL. Why would any player risk that potential in favor of a new scheme, coach, and teammates?

Most people in life choose security unless taking the risk is truly best for their future.

Overwhelming, I see more players leaving the blue bloods for more playing time or to be closer to home than I see them leaving to win 3 more games a year

[TaleofTwoDogs]

In principle I like this idea but the current rule was in place to prevent the college version of free agency. If you think cheating is bad now, this would probably open up a whole new level of cheaters.

[Cowbell]

Agree but I don?t see many starters leaving.

Why would they? If you?re a starter for MSU and good enough to play for Bama, you?re likely only a year or 2 from the NFL. Why would any player risk that potential in favor of a new scheme, coach, and teammates?

Most people in life choose security unless taking the risk is truly best for their future.

Overwhelming, I see more players leaving the blue bloods for more playing time or to be closer to home than I see them leaving to win 3 more games a year

Saban-

?Hey Kylin we need another starting RB this year to win a natty.?

?Hey Errol - we?ve had more LB drafted in the first round than state - would you like to start day 1 on a national title contender??

?Hey AJ and DK - we have no wideouts this year (they did) - how about finishing your time in the sec by actually playing for something other than money and women at suck u?

This will not go well if the doors were opened.

[MedDawg]

Agree but I don’t see many starters leaving.

Why would they? If you’re a starter for MSU and good enough to play for Bama, you’re likely only a year or 2 from the NFL. Why would any player risk that potential in favor of a new scheme, coach, and teammates?

Most people in life choose security unless taking the risk is truly best for their future.

Overwhelming, I see more players leaving the blue bloods for more playing time or to be closer to home than I see them leaving to win 3 more games a year

When I thought of easy transfers a few years ago, I worried about Bama stealing our star players. Now I believe that State would benefit more for the reasons you give here.

[Cooterpoot]

It’s been happening in softball. All you have to do is look. OK has pulled every pitcher they could. Coach leaves a school, like Oregon, and players follow him. It would kill us and help the blue bloods.

[Schultzy]

Infinite recruiting cycle...heaven on earth

[Quaoarsking]

Do they currently count against the signing class as it is? I thought they did?

I would assume they do, but I'm saying they should count as double scholarships against the 85, to prevent schools from going overboard in recruiting other school's players. Maybe this rule could be waived the original school gives permission so that players leaving the P5 for the G5 don't really hurt their new schools.

[TUSK]

Means Bama etc. could recruit our best players too. One big loss for us is far worse than them losing a bench warmer.
Look at what OK had done in softball with free transfers for all.

yup. Bammer would weed out signee busts and replace them the next year.... Plus they'd get some ring chasers....

[Todd4State]

Agree but I don’t see many starters leaving.

Why would they? If you’re a starter for MSU and good enough to play for Bama, you’re likely only a year or 2 from the NFL. Why would any player risk that potential in favor of a new scheme, coach, and teammates?

Most people in life choose security unless taking the risk is truly best for their future.

Overwhelming, I see more players leaving the blue bloods for more playing time or to be closer to home than I see them leaving to win 3 more games a year

The other thing is Alabama probably doesn't have a ton of clearly open spots available. A lot of guys aren't going to want to risk competing against guys who have been in their program 3-5 years and know the scheme and system better.

[confucius say]

yup. Bammer would weed out signee busts and replace them the next year.... Plus they'd get some ring chasers....

Not specific to Bama, but how would you replace them with "hard cap of 25" rule, which, in its current form, doesn't allow you to add schollies to make up for kids who transferred? For example, if you have 85 this year and lose 15 seniors and 5 juniors to early entry, you have 65. Then if you have 15 more transfer, that puts you at 50. Even signing a full 25 the following cycle only gets you back to 75.

[ShotgunDawg]

Saban-

?Hey Kylin we need another starting RB this year to win a natty.?

?Hey Errol - we?ve had more LB drafted in the first round than state - would you like to start day 1 on a national title contender??

?Hey AJ and DK - we have no wideouts this year (they did) - how about finishing your time in the sec by actually playing for something other than money and women at suck u?

This will not go well if the doors were opened.

He may do that, but I don't think those guys would leave their starting positions on an SEC team for a sales pitch. I just don't see it being an issue unless the player is terribly immature

[TUSK]

Not specific to Bama, but how would you replace them with "hard cap of 25" rule, which, in its current form, doesn't allow you to add schollies to make up for kids who transferred? For example, if you have 85 this year and lose 15 seniors and 5 juniors to early entry, you have 65. Then if you have 15 more transfer, that puts you at 50. Even signing a full 25 the following cycle only gets you back to 75.

My post was under the assumption that the 85 rule would take priority over the 25 rule.... ie: If ya have a cat that leaves after 1 year, you get to make that up with 26 the next.

Under your premise (hard 25), that would definitely have an adverse effect on Bammer, especially when you consider the "3 & done" guys...

[sleepy dawg]

In principle I like this idea but the current rule was in place to prevent the college version of free agency. If you think cheating is bad now, this would probably open up a whole new level of cheaters.

Who cares. Cheating is already running rampant. There's no stopping it and it can barely be slowed down. When you try to artificially control a market this is just what happens.

[Johnson85]

In principle I like this idea but the current rule was in place to prevent the college version of free agency. If you think cheating is bad now, this would probably open up a whole new level of cheaters.

Maybe. If the rule was very strict against tampering prior to an athlete entering the transfer portal, and made it where entering the transfer portal means a player cannot stay at his current school without sitting out a year, you might see a system that is very different from recruiting. The blue bloods aren't going to want to have to continually recruit all their role players to keep them from being solicited by other Power 5 programs that could feature them, so you will see the NCAA take tampering seriously.

They might just police it one sided right out of the gate, but I wouldn't be shocked if a sort of unwritten code developed where everybody was going to treat the tampering rules as binding while the recruiting rules for high school and JUCO players continue to be just for show.

[dawgs]

Saban-

?Hey Kylin we need another starting RB this year to win a natty.?

?Hey Errol - we?ve had more LB drafted in the first round than state - would you like to start day 1 on a national title contender??

?Hey AJ and DK - we have no wideouts this year (they did) - how about finishing your time in the sec by actually playing for something other than money and women at suck u?

This will not go well if the doors were opened.

Tampering would need to be punishable the same way handing a kid a check is punishable. Would be tough to prove unless the kid is willing to turn over private messages (and if they decide not the transfer, why not turn them over??), but catch a couple coaches tampering with scholarship players elsewhere and make an example out of them would be a solid deterrent to start.

I'm also in the boat that this would benefit MSU more than hurt us in the fabric of CFB. Highly unlikely that stud starters for MSU would leave a starting spot for another sec program even if they thought they could contribute to a natty at bama. Bama ain't lacking talent at any position, they simply may lack experience. Even if we lost the occasional starter, I think we'd stand to gain a hell of a lot more from late developing guys at usm and Memphis and Tulane and uab type programs with potential NFL futures who want to compete against the sec week in and week out.

[Todd4State]

Tampering would need to be punishable the same way handing a kid a check is punishable. Would be tough to prove unless the kid is willing to turn over private messages (and if they decide not the transfer, why not turn them over??), but catch a couple coaches tampering with scholarship players elsewhere and make an example out of them would be a solid deterrent to start.

I'm also in the boat that this would benefit MSU more than hurt us in the fabric of CFB. Highly unlikely that stud starters for MSU would leave a starting spot for another sec program even if they thought they could contribute to a natty at bama. Bama ain't lacking talent at any position, they simply may lack experience. Even if we lost the occasional starter, I think we'd stand to gain a hell of a lot more from late developing guys at usm and Memphis and Tulane and uab type programs with potential NFL futures who want to compete against the sec week in and week out.


I agree because those spots aren't likely to be available at Alabama in general.