Do You Want 1 Time Free Transfer Rule To Pass?

[confucius say]

No restrictions. One time free for any reason.

[HoopsDawg]

In general, no, I don't want it to pass.

The player has the power when picking a school. Then the power shifts to the coaches. If the rule passes, the player will have all the power his entire career. It's going to be very difficult to coach and develop in that environment. Are coaches going to have to constantly recruit current players as well as future prospects? Are coaches going to be able to discipline? Are blue chip programs going to recruit and cherry pick from lesser programs? What other unintended consequences will result from this rule change?

[ShotgunDawg]

No.

Coaches losing power to coach and develop humans is a bad thing for everyone, including the players.

The best situation is for kids that have playing time issues to be able to receive immediately eligibility by applying to the NCAA

[dawgday166]

No restrictions. One time free for any reason.

No. Would potentially create massive chaos IMO. A little bit of butt hurt over anything and players would be going to the portal.

[Leeshouldveflanked]

Could you imagine how many more players Saban could process.....

[HoopsDawg]

Could you imagine how many more players Saban could process.....

We would need to hire a "portal staff" to monitor and recruit players. We would need a good network of "bagmen" to continue to communicate with players after signing day. We would need to monitor depth charts for potential pick ups. If it passes, we may as well be prepared for it and ready to take advantage b/c I guarantee the UF, AU, and Bama's will.

[ShotgunDawg]

We would need to hire a "portal staff" to monitor and recruit players. We would need a good network of "bagmen" to continue to communicate with players after signing day. We would need to monitor depth charts for potential pick ups. If it passes, we may as well be prepared for it and ready to take advantage b/c I guarantee the UF, AU, and Bama's will.

This.

The unintended consequences of this are brutal.

Last week I read on twitter, may have been Kendall Rogers, that this was expected to pass & I can't figure out for the life of me how.

I refuse to believe this legislation has the proper support &, if so, how?

[RiverCityDawg]

In general, no, I don't want it to pass.

The player has the power when picking a school. Then the power shifts to the coaches. If the rule passes, the player will have all the power his entire career. It's going to be very difficult to coach and develop in that environment. Are coaches going to have to constantly recruit current players as well as future prospects? Are coaches going to be able to discipline? Are blue chip programs going to recruit and cherry pick from lesser programs? What other unintended consequences will result from this rule change?

Agree. I'm not for it.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Yes

[ShotgunDawg]

Yes

If you're going to be the only one to say yes, can you please explain your position as if you're trying to sell me on changing my opinion?

[Pipedream]

Yes. The power balance between coach and player has always been way too far out of wack in CFB. This should help to make it more of a symbiotic relationship. The players need the coaches and the coaches need the players, now the coaches have to act upon that reality if this legislation passes instead of idle threats and manipulation that goes on rampantly.

[WinningIsRelentless]

Yes I want it to pass just not completely the way its written. I would write it that a freshman or sophomores can transfer without having to sit out.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

If you're going to be the only one to say yes, can you please explain your position as if you're trying to sell me on changing my opinion?

I'm not trying to sell you or anyone else on changing your opinion. I like the idea. The players have very little control while coaches can come & go as they please. I'm fine with getting them 1 free transfer. I don't think this is going to be some free for all. My post wasn't meant to try to start a discussion on why I'm right & you're wrong. This post isn't either.

[Todd4State]

I'm fine with it. College kids transfer all the time and don't have to sit out a year.

I think it could actually benefit MSU. How many times do we lose a Scott Lashley to an shiny out of state school only for them to not be able to play and then their only home option is Jackson State because of the transfer rules?

[HoopsDawg]

Just a reminder to those voting yes, players can transfer now. The price is they have to sit out 1 year. That seems reasonable to me. And they don't even lose a year of eligibilty if they have a redshirt to use.

In a perfect world, there would be some kind of formula. Maybe, if you play less than 20% of snaps, you get a 1 time free transfer. Or something to that effect.

[ShotgunDawg]

Just a reminder to those voting yes, players can transfer now. The price is they have to sit out 1 year. That seems reasonable to me. And they don't even lose a year of eligibilty if they have a redshirt to use.

In a perfect world, there would be some kind of formula. Maybe, if you play less than 20% of snaps, you get a 1 time free transfer. Or something to that effect.

The percentage is definitely the best way to go

[ShotgunDawg]

Yes I want it to pass just not completely the way its written. I would write it that a freshman or sophomores can transfer without having to sit out.

Agree

[ShotgunDawg]

The players have very little control while coaches can come & go as they please.

Yeah, I get that, but the coaches are grown ups that have already matured to the point of being productive members of society.

They aren't equals & thus it's OK if things aren't completely equal.

I get your point, but there needs to be more mentorship/tough love in this country & by creating this rule, we are purposefully asking for that to regress. I don't get it

[NWADAWG]

Smaller colleges would be used like jr colleges are now. I can see SEC schools telling high potential project kids, "you go play for North Texas for a year or two and if you excel, we will transfer you in at that point."

On the other hand, every 2nd and 3rd string kid at Alabama and Clemson would have smaller schools blowing their phones up.

[confucius say]

Yes. The power balance between coach and player has always been way too far out of wack in CFB. This should help to make it more of a symbiotic relationship. The players need the coaches and the coaches need the players, now the coaches have to act upon that reality if this legislation passes instead of idle threats and manipulation that goes on rampantly.

The power balance is university-player. Not coach-player. And the university should have much more power than the player. It provides the player with his only platform for a path to a pro career (not to mention the education/rent/food/etc), and, more importantly, is the money driver. There is a ton of money in college football not because of the players, but bc of our passion for MSU, bama, fla, etc... We, the consumers, love the players and invest in them emotionally only bc they chose MSU.

Therefore, while the players should def have some power bc they are an important piece, the power balance should largely favor the universities.

[maroonmania]

I'm absolutely not for college free agency which is what this will be. Exception would be those transferring due to lack of playing time. Those players I have no problem with not sitting out. Everyone deserves a chance to actually get on the field and play but most of those players would be transferring down. You can transfer now all you want if you are willing to sit out one year in doing so (and even a lot those get exceptions which I don't agree with). And its not like you are not on scholarship for that year you are sitting out so you are still getting a free education. I mean if an NFL player signs a 4 year contract with a team and 2 years in decides he doesn't want to be there anymore are you fine with him holding out and demanding to be traded even though he voluntarily signed the contract?

[maroonmania]

The power balance is university-player. Not coach-player. And the university should have much more power than the player. It provides the player with his only platform for a path to a pro career (not to mention the education/rent/food/etc), and, more importantly, is the money driver. There is a ton of money in college football not because of the players, but bc of our passion for MSU, bama, fla, etc... We, the consumers, love the players and invest in them emotionally only bc they chose MSU.

Therefore, while the players should def have some power bc they are an important piece, the power balance should largely favor the universities.

Exactly, the university spends a ton of money recruiting that player in the first place to get them to come there at a time when the player can choose ANYWHERE in the country he wants to go.

[Irondawg]

This is a really hard one to figure out. I think here is what I would do:

- Allow one time transfer after first year only
- waiver of sitting out only applies if you transfer out of conference
- grad transfer rule remains the same

This way you take of kids that buy into some pitch and realize they made a big mistake. Also doesn’t kill schools that rely on developing players.

The only hole then is kids that get hit with a coaching change that changes the whole system. You could keep the exception policy but just enforce it correctly with strict guidelines.

Also have really strong penalties for tampering is schools get caught trying to woo freshmen before they enter the portal.

[archdog]

Yes. The power balance between coach and player has always been way too far out of wack in CFB. This should help to make it more of a symbiotic relationship. The players need the coaches and the coaches need the players, now the coaches have to act upon that reality if this legislation passes instead of idle threats and manipulation that goes on rampantly.

Agreed. But the huge dowmside is there is now a free agency. Just imagine if Jeffery Simmons could have just jumped teams his Junior year to say.....Alabama if they had an open slot. Ouch, that would have been terrible.

But the other side of that coin, they are students. Any student in this nation can change universities if admitted to a different one.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

Agreed. But the huge dowmside is there is now a free agency. Just imagine if Jeffery Simmons could have just jumped teams his Junior year to say.....Alabama if they had an open slot. Ouch, that would have been terrible.

But the other side of that coin, they are students. Any student in this nation can change universities if admitted to a different one.

This scenario just isn't going to happen much at all.

[ShotgunDawg]

Agreed. But the huge dowmside is there is now a free agency. Just imagine if Jeffery Simmons could have just jumped teams his Junior year to say.....Alabama if they had an open slot. Ouch, that would have been terrible.

But the other side of that coin, they are students. Any student in this nation can change universities if admitted to a different one.

Other students aren't invested in and relied upon for the welfare of the school like these guys though.

If that mean we need to pay them something, then pay them something

[Pipedream]

The power balance is university-player. Not coach-player. And the university should have much more power than the player. It provides the player with his only platform for a path to a pro career (not to mention the education/rent/food/etc), and, more importantly, is the money driver. There is a ton of money in college football not because of the players, but bc of our passion for MSU, bama, fla, etc... We, the consumers, love the players and invest in them emotionally only bc they chose MSU.

Therefore, while the players should def have some power bc they are an important piece, the power balance should largely favor the universities.

The university pays the coach millions of dollars to control the roster/lineup as he sees fit. The provost doesn't control the players snaps i.e. the gateway to his future as an athlete. The in stadium revenue is less than half of the TV media rights revenue. It's the common fan or the stay at home fan that is driving the money in college fb, not the die hards. I don't think this gives the players more power than the coaches, it's just close to equaling it. If the assistant coach, the off field recruiter, the position coach, and the head coach can all leave the next season without penalty, then why should the unpaid player be penalized if he wants to leave? Especially if they grant it as a 1 time pass without sitting out.

[ShotgunDawg]

If the assistant coach, the off field recruiter, the position coach, and the head coach can all leave the next season without penalty, then why should the unpaid player be penalized if he wants to leave? Especially if they grant it as a 1 time pass without sitting out.

This is one of those things that looks good on paper but doesn't work in reality.

This perspective, while logical, ignores the foundation of responsibility, there is no I in team, work ethic, & accountability that is laid for young men early in their college careers.

The unintended consequences of this this rule would be significantly worse than any good that was done for the player.

True, NOT THAT MANY WOULD TRANSFER, but the constant threat of it would significantly regress the ability of the coach teach the important values.

What good does it do for coaches not to be able to fully invest in a player because transfer is hanging over their head.

Not to even mention, that it swings the door wide open for bag me for one school to recruit players on another school's roster.

I don't disagree that the players need & deserve more than what they currently get, but this ain't the answer. Not even close

[Jack Lambert]

I am ready for a cold sweet watermelon.

[Pipedream]

This is one of those things that looks good on paper but doesn't work in reality.

This perspective, while logical, ignores the foundation of responsibility, there is no I in team, work ethic, & accountability that is laid for young men early in their college careers.

The unintended consequences of this this rule would be significantly worse than any good that was done for the player.

True, NOT THAT MANY WOULD TRANSFER, but the constant threat of it would significantly regress the ability of the coach teach the important values.

What good does it do for coaches not to be able to fully invest in a player because transfer is hanging over their head.

Not to even mention, that it swings the door wide open for bag me for one school to recruit players on another school's roster.

I don't disagree that the players need & deserve more than what they currently get, but this ain't the answer. Not even close

This is going to be tough for you to comprehend because you see it as an authoritarian relationship when it's really a business one. The coach needs the player to stay so he can either win games with him now (and cash in those wins) or keep him later in order to win future games (future earnings). You see it as it was intended to be 50 years ago before college football became a massive business. I don't believe you, nor anyone, have the foresight to see what is coming re: unintended consequences of the rule. That same argument was used against grad transfers and I think that has universally been a good thing for everyone in the game. Bag men are omnipresent. There is a market place for players (bag men) because of their value to a team. That's going to continue to be tapped into as long as the game exists and the "student athletes" are basically unpaid labor. The player is going to get those same "important values" no matter what coach he plays for if he is going to be on the team. The one time "free" transfer just means that bad actors won't get a 2nd chance to be knuckleheads on a roster.

[ShotgunDawg]

This is going to be tough for you to comprehend because you see it as an authoritarian relationship when it's really a business one. The coach needs the player to stay so he can either win games with him now (and cash in those wins) or keep him later in order to win future games (future earnings). You see it as it was intended to be 50 years ago before college football became a massive business. I don't believe you, nor anyone, have the foresight to see what is coming re: unintended consequences of the rule. That same argument was used against grad transfers and I think that has universally been a good thing for everyone in the game. Bag men are omnipresent. There is a market place for players (bag men) because of their value to a team. That's going to continue to be tapped into as long as the game exists and the "student athletes" are basically unpaid labor. The player is going to get those same "important values" no matter what coach he plays for if he is going to be on the team. The one time "free" transfer just means that bad actors won't get a 2nd chance to be knuckleheads on a roster.

I see your point. I really do.

I just don't think it serves the greater good.

In saying all that, I believe it would benefit MSU.

[confucius say]

The university pays the coach millions of dollars to control the roster/lineup as he sees fit. The provost doesn't control the players snaps i.e. the gateway to his future as an athlete. The in stadium revenue is less than half of the TV media rights revenue. It's the common fan or the stay at home fan that is driving the money in college fb, not the die hards. I don't think this gives the players more power than the coaches, it's just close to equaling it. If the assistant coach, the off field recruiter, the position coach, and the head coach can all leave the next season without penalty, then why should the unpaid player be penalized if he wants to leave? Especially if they grant it as a 1 time pass without sitting out.

1. Common fan or diehard fan makes no difference. The money is because of the fans' passion and appetite for their teams. This is why the xfl went bankrupt. When those same xfl players were on college teams that people care about, they got ratings. When on an xfl team, nobody watched. The money follows the teams, not the players.

2. Unpaid players? D1 football scholarship players get more in rent, food, and stipend monthly than 25% of Mississippians get monthly. And that's before valuing the cost of free education and a national platform in front of millions for their talents.

I'm in favor of some kind of immediate eligibility in certain circumstances by the way. I'm just of the opinion the players should not have anywhere near close to equal power as the universities. The players are much more replaceable than the universities.

[ShotgunDawg]

This may be the first time I've fought against a rule that benefits MSU.

Ask yourself this: What's more likely?

1. In a typical year, MSU only has 2-4 players that could start for Alabama: Do those 2-4 players transfer to Bama in their JR & SR years when they are the leaders of MSU's team?

2. USM, La Tech, Memphis, UAB, Tulane, North Texas, etc usually have 2-4 players that could start for MSU. Do those players transfer so that they have the opportunity to play in the SEC & show NFL scouts their abilities vs the best?

See... this would benefit MSU & give MSU a more well rounded roster. Sure we'd lose a few guys but mostly just the unhappy ones like Lovett. We more than likely wouldn't lose any Daks or Simmons type players because with a more well rounded roster & a 16 team playoff, they'd have a legit chance to win big

I think the rule likely would hurt the depth at Bama & LSU more than anything. Those players that get recruited over by their sophomore years would be transferring to MSU & Ole Miss type schools.

[Pipedream]

1. Common fan or diehard fan makes no difference. The money is because of the fans' passion and appetite for their teams. This is why the xfl went bankrupt. When those same xfl players were on college teams that people care about, they got ratings. When on an xfl team, nobody watched. The money follows the teams, not the players.

2. Unpaid players? D1 football scholarship players get more in rent, food, and stipend monthly than 25% of Mississippians get monthly. And that's before valuing the cost of free education and a national platform in front of millions for their talents.

I'm in favor of some kind of immediate eligibility in certain circumstances by the way. I'm just of the opinion the players should not have anywhere near close to equal power as the universities. The players are much more replaceable than the universities.

The XFL went bankrupt because a global pandemic halted their season dead in the middle of it while still having mass amount of creditors and now way to repay them. If it would have played out it was going to be an economic success for the investors. Attendance is down and ratings are up. TV is the money driver in CFB and will be even moreso going forward. Fan passion loyalty mean much less to the average TV viewer than brand names whether that is team or player driven.

Yes. Unpaid. Lots of kids are on scholarships. Not every student directly contributes to a 9 figure department budget with their name/likeness/jersey. The coaches salaries are going up, the facilities keep improving. There's no ceiling on that type of spending because they don't have to pay the real labor.

[BB30]

This is one of those things that looks good on paper but doesn't work in reality.

This perspective, while logical, ignores the foundation of responsibility, there is no I in team, work ethic, & accountability that is laid for young men early in their college careers.

The unintended consequences of this this rule would be significantly worse than any good that was done for the player.

True, NOT THAT MANY WOULD TRANSFER, but the constant threat of it would significantly regress the ability of the coach teach the important values.

What good does it do for coaches not to be able to fully invest in a player because transfer is hanging over their head.

Not to even mention, that it swings the door wide open for bag me for one school to recruit players on another school's roster.

I don't disagree that the players need & deserve more than what they currently get, but this ain't the answer. Not even close

Well, If the coaches agree to all coach them up hard then I don't think you will have any issues with coaches not being able to "coach" the way they see fit.

It isn't like Saban or Mullen are going to quit being hard on kids because he is scared of transfers. They can transfer all they want but most college coaches are going to be pretty hard on them anyway.

And if a coach isn't coaching them hard he probably isn't having a lot of success.

[confucius say]

The XFL went bankrupt because a global pandemic halted their season dead in the middle of it while still having mass amount of creditors and now way to repay them. If it would have played out it was going to be an economic success for the investors. Attendance is down and ratings are up. TV is the money driver in CFB and will be even moreso going forward. Fan passion loyalty mean much less to the average TV viewer than brand names whether that is team or player driven.

Yes. Unpaid. Lots of kids are on scholarships. Not every student directly contributes to a 9 figure department budget with their name/likeness/jersey. The coaches salaries are going up, the facilities keep improving. There's no ceiling on that type of spending because they don't have to pay the real labor.

Xfl ratings were tanking before any covid problems. That is an objective fact. If it were profitable and a success, it would be back next year. Just like every other profitable sporting league that was stopped due to covid will be back next season.

Which kids on scholarship other than athletes get thousands in stipends and clothes and, more importantly, a national platform to display their talent? Players choose to play college ball. If the players were not getting huge benefits by doing so, they wouldn't be doing so.

[maroonmania]

But the other side of that coin, they are students. Any student in this nation can change universities if admitted to a different one.

A lot of red herring arguments for the free pass on sitting a year. Yes, any student can change universities at any time for academics, and SO CAN ATHLETES. Not only that, but when they are sitting out for the year they are almost always still on athletic scholarship. This has nothing to do with being a student and everything to do with being an athlete. I guess because most people figure athletes are only there to play ball anyway so if you make them sit out a year to actively play its cruel and unusual punishment. And anyone saying that eliminating the sit out rule will not have a big impact is just purely guessing. D1 basketball, one of the worst sports in having players transfers, already has 33% of all players transfer during their career with having to sit out. I could easily see that go above 50% if you give them all immediate eligibility when transferring.