UConn Outbound Transfers for 8/1/23>7/31/24 Cycle

[RSTuthill]

Advice to those who have just completed their redshirt freshman year with a bit of playing time under their belt. Wait another year.

You will likely get a fair amount of additional playing time next season, thus establishing your bona fides and true market value. Then evaluate the market and, if you must, go then. Next year the market will have far more opportunities for you as everyone who has gone into the portal this year will not longer be as attractive next year due to needing to sit out a year. So, sellers' market next year since so many are transferring this year.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Not sure what the average stay is for a player with the advent of the immediate eligibility transfer, but does it really matter to a player that you are not in a conference? Heck, a two game series is about equivalent to the frequency of an ongoing conference foe at the individual player level.

 

[DoctorWho85]

Good for him. That’s definitely more eyeballs on him than with us. Can’t hate that move

 

[huskymedic]

New day & age I guess:

 

[Tdaley]

New day & age I guess:

He played very well for us this past year!

 

[DoctorWho85]

That’s pretty big to get Lundt back.

 

[huskymedic]

OL Will Meyer entered the Transfer Portal today.

 

[uconnfan68]

Good for him. That’s definitely more eyeballs on him than with us. Can’t hate that move

What position will he play?

 

[Fairfield_1st]

Maybe a stupid idea, but maybe they could modify the free pass process we have now to be a little more restrictive. If you play in half the snaps or minutes you're eligible to play in, you must sit a year when transferring. That way only the ones who play less get the free pass. By using the term "eligible", there's no benefit to quitting after a minimal number of games because only the games you were eligible to play in would count in the calculation.
Again, maybe a bad idea, but I'm trying to find a way to stem the tide of players leaving for the highest bidder. For the NCAA and the fandoms, this is not sustainable.

 

[CL82]

Maybe a stupid idea, but maybe they could modify the free pass process we have now to be a little more restrictive. If you play in half the snaps or minutes you're eligible to play in, you must sit a year when transferring. That way only the ones who play less get the free pass. By using the term "eligible", there's no benefit to quitting after a minimal number of games because only the games you were eligible to play in would count in the calculation.
Again, maybe a bad idea, but I'm trying to find a way to stem the tide of players leaving for the highest bidder. For the NCAA and the fandoms, this is not sustainable.

I have less problem with the transfer portal, per se, than I do with the transfer portal coupled with unrestricted NIL. The easiest fix in my opinion, is to make NIL payments from a booster disqualifying in the same way that payments from a booster have always been disqualifying until the last couple of years.

Now, if, I don't know Adidas wants to pay a kid $1 million and it is in no way linked to playing for a particular team God bless. But, if Murray's Chrysler, Jeep, Buick car dealership wants to give every lineman for local State U $100,000 for being on the team, that would be a disqualifying payment. It is a really easy fix. Logical and reasonable in scope.

I give credit to @HuskyHawk for coming up with it.

 

[Scrutiner]

OL Will Meyer entered the Transfer Portal today.

Did he play at all?

 

[noeynox]

I have less problem with the transfer portal, per se, than I do with the transfer portal coupled with unrestricted NIL. The easiest fix in my opinion, is to make NIL payments from a booster disqualifying in the same way that payments from a booster have always been disqualifying until the last couple of years.

Now, if, I don't know Adidas wants to pay a kid $1 million and it is in no way linked to playing for a particular team God bless. But, if Murray's Chrysler, Jeep, Buick car dealership wants to give every lineman for local State U $100,000 for being on the team, that would be a disqualifying payment. It is a really easy fix. Logical and reasonable in scope.

I give credit to @HuskyHawk for coming up with it.

Is it though? Why should Adidas be allowed to do that, but the local car dealership not? I don't think local car dealerships or other small businesses have the money to burn where that would create a real problem. Its why they have come up with collectives to pool money to pay kids. Its high level crowd sourcing to buy players. The real problem then is the allowing of the "collectives" to exist.

 

[CL82]

Is it though? Why should Adidas be allowed to do that, but the local car dealership not? I don't think local car dealerships or other small businesses have the money to burn where that would create a real problem. It's why they have come up with collectives to pool money to pay kids. It's high level crowd sourcing to buy players. The real problem then is the allowing of the "collectives" to exist.

Boosters can do whatever they like, but athletes choosing to accept the money would impact their eligibility.

Don't obsess over the car dealership example I used. I picked a random company type.

 

[noeynox]

Boosters can do whatever they like, but athletes choosing to accept the money would impact their eligibility.

Don't obsess over the car dealership example I used. I picked a random company type.

Same sentiment. Why let Adidas pay someone but not a local company? And the whole point of NIL was shifting the balance of power. Everyone knew Cam Newton got a bag to to Auburn and why shouldn't he? When he wins a national title there everyone gets paid. The coaches end up negotiating for more money. We just saw Hurley get bumped up to another stratosphere salary wise. Let the kids get paid. It may kill the sports, but til then let em eat.

 

[ZooCougar]

Boosters can do whatever they like, but athletes choosing to accept the money would impact their eligibility.

Don't obsess over the car dealership example I used. I picked a random company type.

This seems unenforceable.

 

[PNolanFan]

The data is showing portal transfers growing with the onset of NIL. While not 100% of the kids transfer for the money I would expect the majority are leaving for the money. Why else is there an NIL database? Are you aware of anyone leaving for less NIL money?

I think things are still unsettled though. Currently there is a shroud over exacts, kids will leave for xxx amount of money and i have heard many many many cases where the money isnt even close to what was promised or reported. So there is uncertainty about amounts for sure. The other factor is you had like AM enter the portal just blasting money left and right and it blew up in their face. I also think USC spent and blew a huge wad last year. Those high profile failures are clearly going to set precedents and drive other alumni groups.

Ultimately we dont know where this is headed but i am certain it wont look like it does now in 5 years. Where I think this goes is a certain amount of flattening, the big guys will get the best players and pluck guys out of small schools but it will go down to a certain degree. I also think that guys at big schools who get burried on the dept charts may consider dropping down for playing time. Think some guy at Ole Miss who was a low level 4 star who isnt playing. While obviously a caleb williams is always gonna go to USC I could see a world where the third string QB at alabama gets paid more at UConn to be our star than he will get as a third stringer at alabama. If I am a booster at one of the real big guys, why am I shelling out 100k for some kid who wont even play unless there are several injuries? Or maybe that 100k will consolidate with the stars?

 

[HuskyHawk]

This seems unenforceable.

It's just as enforceable as it has always been. Nothing has changed really. NCAA just stopped enforcing due to the overall challenges.

 

[Purple Stein]

Maybe a stupid idea, but maybe they could modify the free pass process we have now to be a little more restrictive. If you play in half the snaps or minutes you're eligible to play in, you must sit a year when transferring. That way only the ones who play less get the free pass. By using the term "eligible", there's no benefit to quitting after a minimal number of games because only the games you were eligible to play in would count in the calculation.
Again, maybe a bad idea, but I'm trying to find a way to stem the tide of players leaving for the highest bidder. For the NCAA and the fandoms, this is not sustainable.

I don't see what possible incentive any of the power brokers have to reform transfer or NIL right now.

NIL is centralizing money, product, and power. The NCAA is not going to stand up for the UConns or FIUs of the world if it means standing against a system that benefits Alabama and Ohio State.

 

[FlakeyFoont]

If players had to sit out a year the NIL dollars wouldn't be swirling around as much since boosters want instant gratification and would certainly be lukewarm about paying a player to sit around for a year. As the NIL deals and incentives became less lucrative, this in turn would cut down on the transfer stampede. Even for those players buried on the depth chart, knowing they'd have to sit might give them second thoughts about bolting.

The combo of unlimited NIL money and no sitting out is going to accelerate the rot of college sports.

 

[ZooCougar]

It's just as enforceable as it has always been. Nothing has changed really. NCAA just stopped enforcing due to the overall challenges.

Then what's the point of having the rule? There isn't.

It would be far more effective to have a hard limit of one free transfer.

 

[ShakyTheMohel]

I don't see what possible incentive any of the power brokers have to reform transfer or NIL right now.

NIL is centralizing money, product, and power. The NCAA is not going to stand up for the UConns or FIUs of the world if it means standing against a system that benefits Alabama and Ohio State.

I think it's hurting more than the UConns and FIUs of the world. Ole Miss is complaining....Florida has had issues...even Alabama complained about TAMU last year.

 

[CL82]

This seems unenforceable.

No more or less unenforceable than the prior prohibition against booster payments to athletes.

But as someone mentioned above it's all moot because the powers that be don't want the current situation "fixed". It's working just fine for them.

 

[ZooCougar]

No more or less unenforceable than the prior prohibition against booster payments to athletes.

But as someone mentioned above it's all moot because the powers that be don't want the current situation "fixed". It's working just fine for them.

If I’m a booster and I own a business then what would stop me from being a booster personally and my LLC sponsoring sone athletes?

Nothing. It wouldn’t work.

 

[CL82]

If I’m a booster and I own a business then what would stop me from being a booster personally and my LLC sponsoring sone athletes?

Nothing. It wouldn’t work.

Ownership/control rules. But it moot unless the Big boys want it. They don't.

 

[bobbyinaz]

I don't see what possible incentive any of the power brokers have to reform transfer or NIL right now.

NIL is centralizing money, product, and power. The NCAA is not going to stand up for the UConns or FIUs of the world if it means standing against a system that benefits Alabama and Ohio State.

It’s not even about standing up to them.

The NCAA is about to let them make the rules.