Transfer Rules: Big Ten Proposes to allow every athlete to transfer once without sitting a year

Donate To GopherHole

I like this one.

I don't know what "free agency" in CFB will look like for sure. I do fear a total exodus of top talent at times .... at the same time I'd like to give the kids as many options as possible.
 

It may be tough on roster management if you are one of the schools with a large blood letting.
 

Much turmoil of rosters if they let this one go through. So is this rule for only Big 10 conference in that they would transfer within the conference only? Or could they go anywhere?
 

This wouldn't be terrible I guess. I would hope this would then just eliminate grad transfers and just make it one no matter when it is.

I've argued for a system where scholarships out of HS are guaranteed for 2 years. After 2 years, the school can decide to renew it or not. If they do, the scholarship is then guaranteed for the remainder of their career. If the school doesn't want to renew it, then the player can transfer anywhere without sitting out. At the same time the player can decide they don't want to stay there and can go somewhere else. It's almost as if they get a free agent period. If they transfer any other time, then they have to sit out a year.
 


GophersInIowa said:
This wouldn't be terrible I guess. I would hope this would then just eliminate grad transfers and just make it one no matter when it is.

I've argued for a system where scholarships out of HS are guaranteed for 2 years. After 2 years, the school can decide to renew it or not. If they do, the scholarship is then guaranteed for the remainder of their career. If the school doesn't want to renew it, then the player can transfer anywhere without sitting out. At the same time the player can decide they don't want to stay there and can go somewhere else. It's almost as if they get a free agent period. If they transfer any other time, then they have to sit out a year.
Click to expand...

If you are a kid that is from a less financial well off family who is good enough to play D1, but is the type that will blossom in the third and fourth year or never see the playing field. Now, you want the schools to jettisoned his scholie for a new more prominent player after two years?

Who will benefit from this? It will be teams that are already richer in talent. The big losers are the rest of the kids who stand to lose their scholarship after two years.

Most kids on the football roster that are not the tOSUs or Bamas of this are not four or five star players. They do contribute in more ways than one whether it be running the opponents plays or being part of the practice squad.

What ever happened to supporting student athletes to fulfill their dreams of getting a college degree? I am not talking about the super talented ones that will go to the pros, but the majority of the other players on the team.

IMHO, if kids who want playing time and who are buried in the depth chart want to start let them transfer. Don't take the rest of the other kids' dreams away.
 
Last edited:

Wonder if conferences would still be allowed to make a conference rule requiring any in-conf transfers to sit out a year?
 


#2Gopher said:
Much turmoil of rosters if they let this one go through. So is this rule for only Big 10 conference in that they would transfer within the conference only? Or could they go anywhere?
Click to expand...

Big Ten proposed it to the NCAA. Would have to be approved by the NCAA and earliest it could go into effect would be 2021. Would be for all conferences, not just the Big Ten.

Would be very interesting to say the least. Would eliminate the joke of a waiver process that is out there right now which would be a good thing. Appears that the Big Ten ADs are all on board with the idea. Looks like the story is just getting picked up by places like Yahoo so will be interesting to see what kind of reaction it gets from the general public.
 



Why just once? The rationale for the rule is the student benefits from stability in terms of academics.

Beyond that, we all know the existing transfer rule is to help promote roster stability and competition, avoid chaos. Without a carrot to keep guys in place there are going to be a lot of shortsighted decisions made and probably other inadvertent consequences we haven’t considered yet as was seen with the 4 game red shirt rule.

I’d argue transfers ok if the head coach leaves or is fired after a cooling off period so the new hire has a chance to arrive and sell guys on staying. Otherwise thumbs down.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Why just once? The rationale for the rule is the student benefits from stability in terms of academics.

Beyond that, we all know the existing transfer rule is to help promote roster stability and competition, avoid chaos. Without a carrot to keep guys in place there are going to be a lot of shortsighted decisions made and probably other inadvertent consequences we haven’t considered yet as was seen with the 4 game red shirt rule.

I’d argue transfers ok if the head coach leaves or is fired after a cooling off period so the new hire has a chance to arrive and sell guys on staying. Otherwise thumbs down.
Click to expand...

Coaching changes would be very interesting if this rule was put in place. Could see a mass exodus of players when a coach gets fired. And depending on where a new coach comes from you could have players decide to follow him to his new school.
 

More "sport is a joke" rule changes. Bo Bo Smithy is the best freshman to ever play for every year joke Rutgers in 2022. In 2023 he leads Ohio State to an 83 to 6 win at Rutgers and drives away in his new BMW he recently bought with royalty rights earned by his endorsement of Blue Heaven marajuana. Let's all do a Scrip Ohio for today's, but perhaps not tomorrows, "student".

News flash!!: The entire O line at Minnesota transfers to Wisconsin so they can play as a unit in the NCS. They say they wanted a better cash offer from a sponsor and were only offered $60,000 by the Gophers while the Badgers outbid Nebraska. How are those season tickets going?
 

hungan1 said:
If you are a kid that is from a less financial well off family who is good enough to play D1, but is the type that will blossom in the third and fourth year or never see the playing field. Now, you want the schools to jettisoned his scholie for a new more prominent player after two years?

Who will benefit from this? It will be teams that are already richer in talent. The big losers are the rest of the kids who stand to lose their scholarship after two years.

Most kids on the football roster that are not the tOSUs or Bamas of this are not four or five star players. They do contribute in more ways than one whether it be running the opponents plays or being part of the practice squad.

What ever happened to supporting student athletes to fulfill their dreams of getting a college degree? I am not talking about the super talented ones that will go to the pros, but the majority of the other players on the team.

IMHO, if kids who want playing time and who are buried in the depth chart want to start let them transfer. Don't take the rest of the other kids' dreams away.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt this proposal would result in any schools reducing the number of scholarships they give out. It would just cause more turnover in getting them if a player doesn't turn out. Also, why would a school get rid of a scholarship for a player who's been on the team for two years and is going to finally blossom in the next couple seasons? They already invested in that player, now they'll finally get the reward and you think the school would just cut the kid's scholarship?

In fact, this change would benefit those kids who are contributing more off the field because now at the two year mark there's more opportunities to offer a walk-on a scholarship. You're worried about some kids who didn't pan out losing their scholarship while ignoring other kids getting one who are likely working even harder since the coach thinks they're more worthy of a scholarship.
 



If this goes through, it will change the recruiting landscape forever. It will make "transfer recruiting" every bit, if not more, important than HS recruiting, especially on the basketball side.

Go Gophers!!
 

Dabo Swinney to Rashod Bateman: “Hey, how would you like to win a National Championship next season?”

Yeah, I’m against this.
 


I'm all for it. In a sport where coaches and schools earn millions of dollars, I love how folks get high and mighty about the concept of loyalty from student athletes. The onus should be on schools to make it an attractive place for the players to stay.

At the very least, I believe that if the coach who recruited a player leaves, that player should be able to transfer immediately without any penalty.
 

Another solution would be to allow one transfer without losing a year of eligibility, but non-graduates still have to sit out a year, no exceptions nor waivers.
 
Last edited:

PitinoFan said:
Dabo Swinney to Rashod Bateman: “Hey, how would you like to win a National Championship next season?”

Yeah, I’m against this.
Click to expand...

Would think for something like this to work they would need to put in some pretty strict rules about tampering and make sure the only way a coach can contact a player is if they put their name into the transfer portal.

Obviously that wouldn't stop it but if you tied a loss of a scholarship to contacting a player not in the portal it would make a lot of coaches think twice about it.
 



PitinoFan said:
It’s just a hypothetical example. It doesn’t have to be him.
Click to expand...
How about if the transfer is only valid in the first two seasons of participation?

That doesn’t help with Bateman, but most players don’t turn into starts right away. So would help with poaching of higher level upperclassmen.

But even then, guys can graduate after three years and grad transfers anywhere they want anyway ...
 

It’s not going to work. Unless there’s a cap of how many such transfers you can take per year.
 

Sounds great. Now let’s make the rule you only get paid for staying 2+ years at the same institution
 

If this becomes a rule there is no way the smaller schools could compete with the top schools.

Teams like LSU, Ohio State, and Alabama would only bring in the elite high school recruits. They'd partner with another weaker team coached by an alum or a former assistant to be a sort of minor league and then get most of their recruits as transfers from that team once they've played for a year or two. 90% of Alabama's roster will have been in college for at least 2 years, almost all of whom played well enough elsewhere to get a transfer offer to Alabama. The majority of the power 5 teams won't have that arrangement and will have an even distribution of experience levels and will have way fewer upperclassmen options.

This also pairs horribly with sponsors being allowed to give players money. It's already a tough decision to stay at the school you're somewhat loyal to or transfer to a helmet school, potentially sit out a year, and have a shot at a championship. More guys are going to leave when leaving means going from $20,000 in sponsor money to $250,000 at Alabama and Ohio State. Pair that with not needing to sit out and we'll end up with almost all of the top 100 players at 10 schools.
 

commenting without reading the whole thread so apologies if already been mentioned

one free transfer will only help the upper level teams get stronger and put the bottom teams in a position of being a feeder to them.
if this passes I hope they are smart enough to not allow transfers within the conference. Allowing OSU more opportunities to pick up players developed 2-3 years at another school like Iowa or Nebraska or MN is going to ruin the conference (although OSU will be national champions all the time)
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Why just once? The rationale for the rule is the student benefits from stability in terms of academics.
Click to expand...

The reality is that not all credits transfer. Also, you have to earn a certain number of your overall credits and within your major at an institution in order to graduate with a degree. If you are transferring even once, your chances of graduating fall. If you increase that, you almost certainly are not graduating.

I think that 1x might be the sweet spot, 2x it’s probably necessary that they sit out to add the extra year academically, unless the coach is fired/leaves.
 

To me, the main benefit, especially for P5 teams, is to help "clear out" the 2nd and 3rd year guys who have no reasonable prospects to develop into starters or significant contributors on the team in the following years.

You help them find some other place to land, and clear way to focus on developing younger guys you're bringing in at that position.

The 4th year guys, at that point are either starters/contributors, or probably are unlikely to transfer out, so they are what they are. But if you can get to a guy who has redshirted and gone through a season or two, and it doesn't look like it's working out ... those are the main targets.
 

hungan1 said:
If you are a kid that is from a less financial well off family who is good enough to play D1, but is the type that will blossom in the third and fourth year or never see the playing field. Now, you want the schools to jettisoned his scholie for a new more prominent player after two years?

Who will benefit from this? It will be teams that are already richer in talent. The big losers are the rest of the kids who stand to lose their scholarship after two years.

Most kids on the football roster that are not the tOSUs or Bamas of this are not four or five star players. They do contribute in more ways than one whether it be running the opponents plays or being part of the practice squad.

What ever happened to supporting student athletes to fulfill their dreams of getting a college degree? I am not talking about the super talented ones that will go to the pros, but the majority of the other players on the team.

IMHO, if kids who want playing time and who are buried in the depth chart want to start let them transfer. Don't take the rest of the other kids' dreams away.
Click to expand...
Yeah I guess my thinking is it would be somewhat of a compromise.
 

Mitu said:
I'm all for it. In a sport where coaches and schools earn millions of dollars, I love how folks get high and mighty about the concept of loyalty from student athletes. The onus should be on schools to make it an attractive place for the players to stay.

At the very least, I believe that if the coach who recruited a player leaves, that player should be able to transfer immediately without any penalty.
Click to expand...
I agree with the second paragraph. For me, I’m not sure the one transfer rule proposed here is good for college football as a whole. I think it’ll just separate the blue bloods from everyone else even more.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom