One time transfer rule seems likely to be approved

[Exit 4]

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.

How would you decide what qualifies as a bad team? You apparently don't want to use winning percentage because that "incentivizes losing."

Obviously the NCAA doesnt feel competitive balance is an issue yet, however as football becomes ever more like a pro league and the schools become more entrenched as either a loser, middling or winning program, the issue of competitive balance has a decent chance of entering the discussion in the years ahead. TV $ is driving the bus and the next decade the TV $ might have something more to say about increasing competitive balance so that their TV $ can stay lofty since lopsided football with the same 3-6 programs winning is starting to become a bore.

A draft is never coming to NCAA football. The simplest tool would be to let the losers accept more transfers with immediate playing eligibility and exempt the losers from the 25 man cap rule and conversely tighten it a bit on the winners (permitted fewer inbound transfers with immediately playing eligibility).

 

[Irishfan]

How would you decide what qualifies as a bad team? You apparently don't want to use winning percentage because that "incentivizes losing."

Obviously the NCAA doesnt feel competitive balance is an issue yet, however as football becomes ever more like a pro league and the schools become more entrenched as either a loser, middling or winning program, the issue of competitive balance has a decent chance of entering the discussion in the years ahead. TV $ is driving the bus and the next decade the TV $ might have something more to say about increasing competitive balance so that their TV $ can stay lofty since lopsided football with the same 3-6 programs winning is starting to become a bore.

A draft is never coming to NCAA football. The simplest tool would be to let the losers accept more transfers with immediate playing eligibility and exempt the losers from the 25 man cap rule and conversely tighten it a bit on the winners (permitted fewer inbound transfers with immediately playing eligibility).

what qualifies as a bad team? If you have a losing record you are probably a bad team. It could be because of a lack of talent. Or simply bad coaching. And the reason that the NCAA doesn’t think that benefitting the bad teams at the expense of good teams is that allowing the bad teams that refuse to support the teams grab talent from the teams that do spend the money on the program seems to be counterproductive to the success that football has experience.

the goal in letting the bad teams poach the good ones seems to be a desire to turn Alabama into MTSU and Michigan into Toledo. Who cares if Penn State can’t fill a 109k stadium as long as MTSU can get 30,000.

I agree that TV revenue is driving this to a large degree, but I doubt the networks are looking forward to a time where a 7-5 Michigan team plays a 6-6 Ohio State team for the Big Ten championship in front of 60,000 fans, which appears to be your ultimate dream.

 

[Exit 4]

what qualifies as a bad team? If you have a losing record you are probably a bad team. It could be because of a lack of talent. Or simply bad coaching. And the reason that the NCAA doesn’t think that benefitting the bad teams at the expense of good teams is that allowing the bad teams that refuse to support the teams grab talent from the teams that do spend the money on the program seems to be counterproductive to the success that football has experience.

the goal in letting the bad teams poach the good ones seems to be a desire to turn Alabama into MTSU and Michigan into Toledo. Who cares if Penn State can’t fill a 109k stadium as long as MTSU can get 30,000.

I agree that TV revenue is driving this to a large degree, but I doubt the networks are looking forward to a time where a 7-5 Michigan team plays a 6-6 Ohio State team for the Big Ten championship in front of 60,000 fans, which appears to be your ultimate dream.

Better balance - that is the goal. You don't have to like it. Winning programs as absolutely not going to like it.

All the other leagues in sports have rebalancing features and they all have the same plain old arguments you are using. The NCAA has been the exception and like many things in life, that might finally change in the future.

 

[Waquoit]

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.

It should be probable. We need a staff that embraces this, that works on identifying and recruiting players that can show their stuff better here than where they are now. This can be a big opportunity for us.

 

[Irishfan]

Better balance - that is the goal. You don't have to like it. Winning programs as absolutely not going to like it.

All the other leagues in sports have rebalancing features and they all have the same plain old arguments you are using. The NCAA has been the exception and like many things in life, that might finally change in the future.

why not just give teams with losing records five attempts to get a first down and teams with winning records four. It seems like that would accomplish your goal Of equalizing the games.

And if you think that might be a little too much of an equalizer, we can go with your transfer rule change. But why make it a one time transfer. If your theory is correct, wouldn‘t it be best to just make every player a free agent every year. We could see entire teams transfer from one school to another. Using your logic, that would be a good thing. Or would you want only teams with losing records be able to grab other team’s players. Just think, good programs would be feeders for the crappy teams.

 

[Exit 4]

why not just give teams with losing records five attempts to get a first down and teams with winning records four. It seems like that would accomplish your goal Of equalizing the games.

And if you think that might be a little too much of an equalizer, we can go with your transfer rule change. But why make it a one time transfer. If your theory is correct, wouldn‘t it be best to just make every player a free agent every year. We could see entire teams transfer from one school to another. Using your logic, that would be a good thing. Or would you want only teams with losing records be able to grab other team’s players. Just think, good programs would be feeders for the crappy teams.

Do you have disdain for all the sports that use a draft order based on winning percentage which is all of them - baseball, basketball, football, hockey, etc etc? You must only be a fan of college sports as all the others incentivize losing and thus have destroyed the integrity of their respective leagues. Yes, billions of sport entertain industry and millions of fans have been duped watching those other impure competitions where losing has a small silver lining.