One time transfer rule seems likely to be approved

[Exit 4]

It won’t happen, but for football I think this rule change should be tied with your win-loss percentage so that winning programs over a five year avg get say 2 permitted inbound immediate eligibility players per season and losing programs get perhaps 5. Immediate play transfers is one of the few areas the NCAA could tinker with to help bring better competitive balance to college football.

 

[ktuck911]

WE (UConn) need this in the worse way..

 

[Watchdog]

It won’t happen, but for football I think this rule change should be tied with your win-loss percentage so that winning programs over a five year avg get say 2 permitted inbound immediate eligibility players per season and losing programs get perhaps 5. Immediate play transfers is one of the few areas the NCAA could tinker with to help bring better competitive balance to college football.

Good and logical thoughts, but I wonder if the NCAA and their media partners might actually prefer to have 15-20 very good programs and 6-8 outstanding ones and the rest be damned.

With a small number of really good programs they get the hype of a few undefeated seasons broadcast weekly on all the media, can keep the SEC as the prime conference, and maintain the national ratings needed to justify the enormous sums from their media rights deals. The also rans may have a great season now and then and their fans' interest will be maintained over the weak years and everybody's happy.

 

[Exit 4]

Good and logical thoughts, but I wonder if the NCAA and their media partners might actually prefer to have 15-20 very good programs and 6-8 outstanding ones and the rest be damned.

With a small number of really good programs they get the hype of a few undefeated seasons broadcast weekly on all the media, can keep the SEC as the prime conference, and maintain the national ratings needed to justify the enormous sums from their media rights deals. The also rans may have a great season now and then and their fans' interest will be maintained over the weak years and everybody's happy.

I dont disagree.

So the only way anything like I proposed happens is if the University Presidents, the ADs and Head Coaches of a block of lesser schools including those chronically challenged within the P5 come together as a single voice. There certainly will be opposition, especially from some that think any idea of this nature is a slippery slope to more such rules in the future.

That said, I also look at my proposed imbalanced transfers concept as counter weight to the likely upflow this rule change will create for drawing star G5 players up to the P5 which hereto now has not really been a big issue. Particularly the UCFs and Houstons of the world should have some concern that universal immediate play transfers could result in more outflow of their talent to the P5.

 

[calamity17]

It’s a shame we have a head coach that refers to players that transfer as having issues. This won’t be helping us until he’s gone.

 

[Exit 4]

I think we'll go to the portal for 2-3 kids....probably wait until spring to see what positions have thinned out as a result of the usual roster churn.

 

[huskymedic]

>>Under the proposal developed by the NCAA Working Group on Transfers, athletes are afforded a one-time transfer during their athletic careers without suffering the penalty of sitting out a season, reversing a policy from the 1960s. Fall and winter sport athletes would have to notify their schools of a transfer by May 1, with an exception extending the date to July 1 for an end-of-the-year head coaching change or the non-renewal of scholarships. Spring sport athletes would have until July 1 to notify schools of transfer. Athletes missing those deadlines would not be immediately eligible at their new school.

In order to transfer and be eligible, athletes must also leave their previous school academically eligible, according to the proposal. An athlete’s previous school would not have any ability to object to the transfer. The legislation prohibits athletes from competing in the same academic season at two different schools.

The NCAA would not impose limits on the number of transfer athletes that a D-I program may accept in a given year, the legislation says. For now, the NCAA is not adjusting the initial counter limit that caps a football team from adding more than 25 players in a year. However, “the committee agreed to study transfer trends in the sport of football to determine whether future modifications to counter limitations are warranted.”<<

 

[Njalum1422]

So this is terrible for us, right? Can now have our best players picked off easily.

 

[Exit 4]

So this is terrible for us, right? Can now have our best players picked off easily.

I think it will hurt the Sunbelt and Conf USA more than us.
But yes the rich might get richer here... but frankly could it get much worse in college football? They last 15 years we have settled into a very stable period for permanent winners and losers. Competitive balance rules are needed.

 

[DoctorWho85]

So this is terrible for us, right? Can now have our best players picked off easily.

I think it'll help us more than hurt us. We can pick off some players from bigger schools that aren't getting the playing time they want.

 

[Exit 4]

I think it'll help us more than hurt us. We can pick off some players from bigger schools that aren't getting the playing time they want.

Sure, that is possible....so far catching kids dropping down for more playing time certainly has been a mixed bag for UConn and probably for others as well.

 

[don356]

I think it'll help us more than hurt us. We can pick off some players from bigger schools that aren't getting the playing time they want.

I think it's neutral. Without a conference affiliation, it's still going to be an uphill battle to get kids versus conference affiliated schools.

 

[Irishfan]

It won’t happen, but for football I think this rule change should be tied with your win-loss percentage so that winning programs over a five year avg get say 2 permitted inbound immediate eligibility players per season and losing programs get perhaps 5. Immediate play transfers is one of the few areas the NCAA could tinker with to help bring better competitive balance to college football.

never a good idea to give a team a reason to lose a game. Just imagine two teams with .500 records playing each other the last game of the season. Two teams trying to lose.

 

[Exit 4]

never a good idea to give a team a reason to lose a game. Just imagine two teams with .500 records playing each other the last game of the season. Two teams trying to lose.

They could each forfeit and return the money.

Home team is more inclined to take the win in that situation than picking up an 86th scholarship per se.

You could also engineer it that records over the last three weeks of the season don't count towards this metric. Lots of creative stuff could be done with this space including a sliding scale rather than a cliff test.

 

[Irishfan]

They could each forfeit and return the money.

Home team is more inclined to take the win in that situation than picking up an 86th scholarship per se.

You could also engineer it that records over the last three weeks of the season don't count towards this metric. Lots of creative stuff could be done with this space including a sliding scale rather than a cliff test.

80,000 seats $100 average cost of a ticket. $8 million is a lot to give up to ensure you get extra transfers. But simply losing on purpose would accomplish the same thing without losing the money. At Some schools The forfeit would probably cost more than $10 million.

 

[Exit 4]

80,000 seats $100 average cost of a ticket. $8 million is a lot to give up to ensure you get extra transfers. But simply losing on purpose would accomplish the same thing without losing the money. At Some schools The forfeit would probably cost more than $10 million.

No crap, forfeit wasn't a serious response for a myriad of reasons.

And schools that are under a steady diet of losing have dramatically lower gate revenues...but you know that..

 

[ShakyTheMohel]

I think it'll help us more than hurt us. We can pick off some players from bigger schools that aren't getting the playing time they want.

I think it will hurt more than help. Solid players who developed under RE can leave. An under the radar type that Randy recruits and develops can now leave when their potential is reached. On the other hand, getting players from other schools who didn't get playing time is a mixed bag at best.

You hope it offsets, but it feels like this could be a negative.

 

[Exit 4]

I think it will hurt more than help. Solid players who developed under RE can leave. An under the radar type that Randy recruits and develops can now leave when their potential is reached. On the other hand, getting players from other schools who didn't get playing time is a mixed bag at best.

You hope it offsets, but it feels like this could be a negative.

Exactly. Between this and the eventual permission for direct play compensation, its not difficult to imagine that in 15 years the 130 schools in FBS will be whittled to a roughly 65schools playing at level A and roughly 65 at level B with some cross over games.

 

[huskymedic]

Exactly. Between this and the eventual permission for direct play compensation, its not difficult to imagine that in 15 years the 130 schools in FBS will be whittled to a roughly 65schools playing at level A and roughly 65 at level B with some cross over games.

Won’t be that long...

>>The survey found an openness to alternative structures; however, the support differs significantly by competitive classification.

More specifically:

• Almost two-thirds (65%) of respondents from Division I institutions without football were in favor of separating FBS football from the NCAA and creating a new entity to solely manage that sport. However, 42 percent of FBS respondents oppose such a change.
• Roughly 60 percent of Power 5 respondents were very or somewhat likely to support the creation of a separate new division within the NCAA for the Power 5 conferences to compete in sports other than men’s and women’s basketball. By contrast, nearly 60 percent of respondents from non-Power 5 institutions (i.e., Group of 5, the Football Championship Subdivision, and D-I No Football) oppose creating a fourth NCAA Division.
• Just over 60 percent of all respondents support competitive structures that would allow for sport-specific geographic federations, other than basketball, instead of the current multisport conference approach in order to reduce costs.<<

 

[Exit 4]

Won’t be that long...

Well, I was kinda of thinking it will take a few years to get this stuff implemented and to see the early results, then a few more years for the schools outside the P5 to double down on their efforts to keep up (with most failing in the game) and then a final phase as schools outside the P5 start working up a plan B exit the P5 space race.

 

[Bongo Fury]

In the past UCONN has gotten transfers that were 4 stars in HS from power 5 programs and were at best average at UCONN.

 

[BlueDogs]

2/3rds of non-football schools open to change in a sport in which they have no interest. Meanwhile P-5 schools support P5 separation... and those with an interest who will be impacted reject it. Big cash grab.

 

[Irishfan]

No crap, forfeit wasn't a serious response for a myriad of reasons.

And schools that are under a steady diet of losing have dramatically lower gate revenues...but you know that..

but your proposal would still give teams an incentive to lose a game. I can’t imagine a scenario where that would be a good thing. I can’t imagine fans Paying to watch their team lose on purpose.

 

[Exit 4]

but your proposal would still give teams an incentive to lose a game. I can’t imagine a scenario where that would be a good thing. I can’t imagine fans Paying to watch their team lose on purpose.

All leagues give the worst teams draft picks, this is no different. Guess you hate all the leagues.
News flash, there really aren’t any competitive balance tools that don’t indirectly or directly “reward” losing. Take your argument to the rest of league oriented sports. Enough with the one note argument.

 

[Irishfan]

All leagues give the worst teams draft picks, this is no different. Guess you hate all the leagues.
News flash, there really aren’t any competitive balance tools that don’t indirectly or directly “reward” losing. Take your argument to the rest of league oriented sports. Enough with the one note argument.

all the Professional sports leagues you reference have a compelling interest in ensuring the competitiveness of all the teams in the league. I Do not believe that the NCAA feels that there is a compelling interest in insuring that Rutgers is propped up at the expense of Alabama, or MTSU at the expense of Ohio State. I think that if the NCAA wants to see the power five conferences drop out and form a new organization, the quickest way to do it would be to start letting the bad teams poach the good teams of their talent.