Eligibility changes

[Frog-in-law1995]

I sure do. If Alabama (or insert major blue blood program here) all of the sudden has a hole at DT that needs filling, I sure as heck don't want Saban or Urban Meyer coming down to Fort Worth to make the pitch to Blacklock. I'm sure he loves it here and doesn't have any second guesses, but I still won't want those guys making their pitch.

I wouldn’t either, but I think non blue blood P5 schools would net positive on the idea overall. Maybe not us specifically, because we do a good job identifying undervalued players that might be more eager to move after a “told you so” year. What I don’t like is the uncertainty of what you’ll have next year that it might create.

 

[MAcFroggy]

This seems like one of the biggest changes to the NCAA in 20 years or so, yet nobody seems to be talking about this. I feel like this will hurt almost all of the FCS school, all the G5 schools, and a lot of the P5 schools (probably even TCU). This benefits very few schools.

However, it is more fair to the students.

 

[Wexahu]

I wouldn’t either, but I think non blue blood P5 schools would net positive on the idea overall. Maybe not us specifically, because we do a good job identifying undervalued players that might be more eager to move after a “told you so” year. What I don’t like is the uncertainty of what you’ll have next year that it might create.

Every underclassmen on the team that is doing very well you'd have no certainty they'd be back the following year. In fact, the better they'd do, the less their chances of returning would be because everyone else will be chasing after them. That would absolutely suck as a fan and would virtually ruin college football IMO.

Some rules have to be in place to ensure a semblance of competitive balance. Making kids sit out a year when they transfer is one of them.

 

[flyfishingfrog]

You don’t think Saban said exactly this to Reagor and Blacklock when he offered them the first time?

No - my youngest son played for Saban and with the depth they have, he is pretty upfront with most players that they won't see the field as underclassmen - but will learn from the best and get their shot to win an NC at Bama. Obviously they also have exceptions that get on the field significantly as Freshman and Sophomores, but it is a lot less common than most programs.

It does make some guys go other places for sure but with this system all that would change - you wouldn't have to recruit guys for the chance they might be good enough 3 years from now and ask them to sit and wait - you could go out and recruit other teams freshman and sophomore (even junior) stars because you only need depth for next year. The year after that, you will go out and do it again with a low percentage chance of a player being a bust since he has proven it on the field at the college level in another program, even if that program is of "lesser" pedigree.

 

[Zubaz]

This seems like one of the biggest changes to the NCAA in 20 years or so, yet nobody seems to be talking about this. I feel like this will hurt almost all of the FCS school, all the G5 schools, and a lot of the P5 schools (probably even TCU). This benefits very few schools.

However, it is more fair to the students.

Both of these statements are correct. It really comes down to what these kids are. If the concern is primarily the competitive environment of the sports teams, then that runs contrary to the notion that they primarily are students and that their amateur status is of the utmost importance. If instead they are students first, then there's zero good reason to restrict their movement between colleges as they see fit.

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

Every underclassmen on the team that is doing very well you'd have no certainty they'd be back the following year. In fact, the better they'd do, the less their chances of returning would be because everyone else will be chasing after them.

I disagree.

No, I agree the odds of returning are less, but only slightly, and are balanced by the odds of pulling in players ourselves.

 

[flyfishingfrog]

This would make the one and done in college basketball look stable by comparison...it would be worse than what G5 schools who win have to go through with wondering if their coach is leaving every year.

Can you imagine how many players from UCF would remain from this years team if the entire P5 could poach from their starters?

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

No - my youngest son played for Saban and with the depth they have, he is pretty upfront with most players that they won't see the field as underclassmen - but will learn from the best and get their shot to win an NC at Bama. Obviously they also have exceptions that get on the field significantly as Freshman and Sophomores, but it is a lot less common than most programs.

It does make some guys go other places for sure but with this system all that would change - you wouldn't have to recruit guys for the chance they might be good enough 3 years from now and ask them to sit and wait - you could go out and recruit other teams freshman and sophomore (even junior) stars because you only need depth for next year. The year after that, you will go out and do it again with a low percentage chance of a player being a bust since he has proven it on the field at the college level in another program, even if that program is of "lesser" pedigree.

OK...insert coach X here. Point is, the kids had the option of going to Alabama and chose TCU, where they are now starting. Fears that they might leave because they could start somewhere else next year are misplaced, imo

 

[flyfishingfrog]

OK...insert coach X here. Point is, the kids had the option of going to Alabama and chose TCU, where they are now starting. Fears that they might leave because they could start somewhere else next year are misplaced, imo

The kid had the option of going to a school to compete with 4 years of previous recruits and his entire recruiting class.

If we allowed sophomore and juniors to transfer without sitting out, then schools could literally target specific players to fill immediate holes without having to recruit 3 and hope 1 works out - so they could literally promise starting roles and/or high levels of playing time without it being a smoke screen because the coach knows he has an opening and the player can deliver.

This is really the basic reason why scholarship limits were put in place only instead of a school having 100+ recruits sitting in the stands to ensure they have the cream of the crop on the field - they can now just pick the cream after seeing another school take the risk.

It would basically be the equivalent of the entire NFL being free agents every year - can you imagine how much better and for how long New England would be under a system like that? or if you believe in pay for play - how high the "salaries" would become for proven winners on the field?

 

[Wexahu]

OK...insert coach X here. Point is, the kids had the option of going to Alabama and chose TCU, where they are now starting. Fears that they might leave because they could start somewhere else next year are misplaced, imo

Regardless of anything else, I just want to point out that just because a kid was offered by Alabama doesn't mean they could have gone to Alabama on a full football scholarship. It doesn't work that way.

Alabama throws out offers that when the rubber meets the road aren't commitable anyway. So when you see a kid chose X school over Alabama, Team X, Team Y and Team Z.........I wouldn't put much stock in that.

Case in point, the QB Baylor signed was supposedly offered by Alabama and LSU. Do you really think if those schools really, really wanted him he'd be going to Baylor? I don't.

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

The kid had the option of going to a school to compete with 4 years of previous recruits and his entire recruiting class.

If we allowed sophomore and juniors to transfer without sitting out, then schools could literally target specific players to fill immediate holes without having to recruit 3 and hope 1 works out - so they could literally promise starting roles and/or high levels of playing time without it being a smoke screen because the coach knows he has an opening and the player can deliver.

This is really the basic reason why scholarship limits were put in place only instead of a school having 100+ recruits sitting in the stands to ensure they have the cream of the crop on the field - they can now just pick the cream after seeing another school take the risk.

It would basically be the equivalent of the entire NFL being free agents every year - can you imagine how much better and for how long New England would be under a system like that? or if you believe in pay for play - how high the "salaries" would become for proven winners on the field?

You still aren’t addressing why a starter would leave the school he chose to go play somewhere he didn’t choose.

 

[Wexahu]

Both of these statements are correct. It really comes down to what these kids are. If the concern is primarily the competitive environment of the sports teams, then that runs contrary to the notion that they primarily are students and that their amateur status is of the utmost importance. If instead they are students first, then there's zero good reason to restrict their movement between colleges as they see fit.

I get it, but entire athletic programs and a whole bunch of other stuff is funded by football $'s, and football is popular at a school like TCU because there is a structure in place that allows us to be successful, and we are. Keeping a semblance of competitive balance is hugely important if the powers that be want the general public to be interested in the sport. And they need the general public invested if they want to keep bringing in huge dollars, which benefits students a great deal too.

I'm about as big a nut as there is about college football but if they allow what amounts to virtually unrestricted free agency, I'm checking out. Great for the students I guess, but I'll be done investing any time or money into the sport because it won't be interesting or fun as a fan anymore.

 

[flyfishingfrog]

You still aren’t addressing why a starter would leave the school he chose to go play somewhere he didn’t choose.

because he will be offered to be the starter at the new school and that new school is "better" - i.e. a NC contender (Alabama over basically anyone for example), top of a conference vs bottom (OU/TCU vs Kansas), a P5 vs a G5.

Lots of kids pick going to a "lesser" school to start because they have a lot higher chance of playing time - my older two sons both did it and got to play significantly as freshman and starters from sophomore onward.

However, if they had been offered the chance to leave the schools they were playing for to move to a top 5 program in the country and be a starter immediately without having to lose a year - I am betting their diploma would look different.

 

[Zubaz]

I get it, but entire athletic programs and a whole bunch of other stuff is funded by football $'s, and football is popular at a school like TCU because there is a structure in place that allows us to be successful, and we are. Keeping a semblance of competitive balance is hugely important if the powers that be want the general public to be interested in the sport. And they need the general public invested if they want to keep bringing in huge dollars, which benefits students a great deal too.

I'm about as big a nut as there is about college football but if they allow what amounts to virtually unrestricted free agency, I'm checking out. Great for the students I guess, but I'll be done investing any time or money into the sport because it won't be interesting or fun as a fan anymore.

That's fine, but if the primary concern is the financial health and well being of the football program, then we would need to admit that the players are essentially professional athletes to that end. Since the NCAA wants to pretend that not to be the case, the alternative is to recognize that these *wink wink* students are totally there for school and not to generate money for the competitive football team. As such they can decide where they want to attend college, and switch that decision at any given time no different than any other student.

 

[Westsider]

No way this passes...... its just too stupid and unfair.

 

[Sebastian S]

However, it is more fair to the students.

I am on the fence on this one.

This is the not like the pro's where you can have a player like LT for 10+ years.

Every collegiate athlete has an expiration date, 5 years max(?) depending on their situation, lucky to have 4 full playing years.

The school is making an "investment" on giving them a scholarship, some will argue that is not enough but that's a pretty big deal, just ask the families of the athletes.

Maybe they need to put more restrictions on coaches leaving?

 

[Frog-in-law1995]

because he will be offered to be the starter at the new school and that new school is "better" - i.e. a NC contender (Alabama over basically anyone for example), top of a conference vs bottom (OU/TCU vs Kansas), a P5 vs a G5.

Lots of kids pick going to a "lesser" school to start because they have a lot higher chance of playing time - my older two sons both did it and got to play significantly as freshman and starters from sophomore onward.

However, if they had been offered the chance to leave the schools they were playing for to move to a top 5 program in the country and be a starter immediately without having to lose a year - I am betting their diploma would look different.

Well, I can’t speak for your kids, obviously, but I don’t think most people would do that. And don’t forget, contacting a student athlete without his school’s permission is a major violation.

 

[Wexahu]

That's fine, but if the primary concern is the financial health and well being of the football program, then we would need to admit that the players are essentially professional athletes to that end. Since the NCAA wants to pretend that not to be the case, the alternative is to recognize that these *wink wink* students are totally there for school and not to generate money for the competitive football team. As such they can decide where they want to attend college, and switch that decision at any given time no different than any other student.

The only thing the player has to do is, IF they are going to play sports at the collegiate level, follow the rules of the NCAA. The NCAA has to have rules in place that encourages competitive balance.

Nobody is making a kid do anything. I hate when that is implied. Every one of these kids can transfer wherever they want to go whenever they want, they just can't play sports right away. All the "primary concern" stuff is just feel-good BS. It's in almost every one of these kids best interest to be able to attend school for free, I know that. That is what is available to them by competing under NCAA rules. And if you take away rules that keep things on a somewhat even playing field, those opportunities will slowly start to go away.

They can all tell the NCAA to go to hell if they want and organize club teams and pay their own way if they want. Then they can set their own rules that cater to their own concerns.

 

[Wexahu]

I am on the fence on this one.

This is the not like the pro's where you can have a player like LT for 10+ years.

Every collegiate athlete has an expiration date, 5 years max(?) depending on their situation, lucky to have 4 full playing years.

The school is making an "investment" on giving them a scholarship, some will argue that is not enough but that's a pretty big deal, just ask the families of the athletes.

Maybe they need to put more restrictions on coaches leaving?

Make a coach sit out a year unless they were fired or their contract expired? I'd have to think about that a bit but it might be a decent idea. You'd have to have some pretty strong language in there to keep coaches from negotiating a termination whenever they want to leave for somewhere but the concept seems ok.

 

[RollToad]

Wex, this benefits Ohio State greatly. Why are you against it?