Yeah, I'd say this has pretty much been a failure.
http://www.fcs.football/cfb/story.asp?i=20160614112836770255204
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
FCS schools want to tighten graduate transfer rule
- Thread starter Jason Svoboda
- Start date
WANTED: Passionate Sycamore Fanatics. That You?
Register NOW to join our community of die-hard Sycamore fans.
Yeah, I'd say this has pretty much been a failure.
http://www.fcs.football/cfb/story.asp?i=20160614112836770255204
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
TwoMinuteDrill
The Sycamore Level
One way to fix it is not to red shirt your star players. Pretty tough for most to graduate in 3 years.
After you fix the transfer problem then please address this.
"The graduate transfer rule was enacted to allow a student-athlete to pursue a graduate degree that isn't offered at his current school. In many ways, the rule's intent is highly supported.
In contrast, coaches can leave a school at any time for another one and not have to sit out one season, as undergraduates do when they initiate a Division I transfer while still part of a program".
I don't feel to sorry for whining coaches on this transfer issue as they don't hesitate to leave before there contract is up. You sign a contract, honor it!
Loyalty is a two way street.
After you fix the transfer problem then please address this.
"The graduate transfer rule was enacted to allow a student-athlete to pursue a graduate degree that isn't offered at his current school. In many ways, the rule's intent is highly supported.
In contrast, coaches can leave a school at any time for another one and not have to sit out one season, as undergraduates do when they initiate a Division I transfer while still part of a program".
I don't feel to sorry for whining coaches on this transfer issue as they don't hesitate to leave before there contract is up. You sign a contract, honor it!
Loyalty is a two way street.
Last edited:
I'm not sure stopping the practice of redshirting will do much for you. Certainly won't do anything if there is a player or multiple ahead of a kid. I think most freshman that can contribute do see the field, don't they? Obviously that is position dependent but true phenoms that can play off the HS bus usually do.
As for that second component, it's always one I've wrestled with and your viewpoint rests on whether you view college as a football factory or educational institution. On one hand, letting players hit the market on a coaching change will likely cause a very volatile market where you'll see even more kids cut because the grass is always greener. On the other hand, it may also influence some stability because schools won't want their teams gutted if they decide to fire a coach. However, if a coach leaves to "take a better job" is it fair to the school that has invested hundreds of thousands (some programs in the millions) of dollars into their student-athletes to have them show no loyalty to the school?
I'm shocked... SHOCKED that "gambling is occurring in this establishment..."
TwoMinuteDrill
The Sycamore Level
In the case of "graduate transfer" it will help. They are building progress toward there degree in the Freshmen red shirt year. Academically you are a senior, but eligibility wise you are a junior if you red shirt. Take away the red shirt most cant graduate in 3 years.
I actually prefer players to stay loyal. My only point is Coach "A" signs a contract extension and player "B" goes the school because he fits the system and coach just signed a new contract. Coach A is hired away by larger school in 1 or 2 years into contract now player B has to hope new coaching system fits him. Some times it doesn't and player B has to find a new home. I just think if you sign a contract the schools need to make more of these coaches fulfill there obligation under the contract - stay until the end. If coach is fired the school still has to pay him. Ask Charlie Weis how that works. At one point I think two schools were paying him to sit at home.
Last edited:
I completely and totally disagree with this idea. Coaching is a JOB and they are free to leave at any time. If a student goes to a college for a FREE EDUCATION because of the coach, shame on them. Your argument would hold water if they were going to a certain school for the professors.
Last edited:
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
TwoMinuteDrill
The Sycamore Level
Correct me if I am wrong but if you sign a contract in most other businesses are you not bound by the terms i.e..stay until it is complete? In college coaching, the coach leaves at any time, but if fired gets full compensation.
I do agree that an athlete should never choose a college based on the coach. Reality is unfortunately is many do and this is why they get burned. How many athletes have you spoken with at ISU that said "When I made my decision to attend ISU I was indifferent to the coach, I totally chose ISU for the academics and the school".
BankShot
The Kleuh Level
Given that a collegiate coach is a "surrogate father" of sort, I can see the release of an athlete when a coach leaves. Coaches have different strategies and personalities, and a player shouldn't be forced to stay with a program AFTER his coach pulls the ripcord. I would place stiplulations w/ regard to a player's right to follow a coach from school to school, enacting a mandatory loss of a season of eligibility to discourage
the trend.
the trend.
Last edited:
Right. They do have contracts in college coaching, and I guess there are reasons for that. And they seem to be "flexible" by either party. And you are right. A coach voluntarily signs a contract, so they should keep it. But sometimes the contract becomes burdensome for both of the school and the coach and terminating is the best answer.
I just don't think you can equate an employment contract with a letter of intent. And the scholarships are for one year, so the athlete has complete freedom to transfer. As far as having to sit out one year: one year of free education can hardly be considered as punishment. And I know some look at that as some sort of penalty.
Sycamore Proud
The Nicks Level
Should contracts include "buy out" provisions?
Many do.
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Sycamore Proud
The Nicks Level
I know they do. But does that make the than a contract more of a business deal than a commentate to a program or a group of recruits by the coach? Should the contract be written with no buy out provision and only allow mutual consent be the only way out of the deal? This situation makes me think about the one and done players. But that's another topic for another day.
niklz62
The JSW Level
Let them transfer. The only people who are indentured to the school are the athletes on scholarship. It's nice that the only binding decision we can trust to a 17 year old kid is which school he will attend to play sports for the next 4-5 years.
If a kid graduates, they should be able to transfer wherever they want and play. I would just get rid of the whole "if they have a major that my current school doesn't have" clause and just let them transfer. They did exactly what they were supposed to do, they went to class and earned their degree. That should release them from the school they signed with. The school gave them a scholarship to play football in return for a student going to class and working towards a degree. School lived up to their end, the student lived up to his end and the "deal" can now end. I feel like once you earn your degree you fulfilled your part of the agreement and should be free to transfer wherever you want to go and play right away.
niklz62
The JSW Level
I always hear about how they are there to get an education......except in this pretty rare situation. If we (ISU) lose a star to another school because of this, Ill be really disappointed but come on, its a player's life compared to our sports team.
The NCAA really likes to have it both ways doesn't it?
The NCAA really likes to have it both ways doesn't it?
Enough with the "poor, down trodden" student ATHLETE as an indentured servant; are some athletes naive or have conflict with the coaching staff? Sure... Are some coaches utter scumbags who care nothing about the athlete except their ability to WIN? Sure
But if anyone thinks the collegiate athletic product will be BETTER because 17-22 YOs can fulfill their EVERY DESIRE right now; you're mistaken.
There are plenty of problems with the current system; the Power 5 Schools and their whack job fan bases, BIG Alumni DONORS are as much to blame as the ncaa
It's no better today than it was decades ago, the $$ amounts are larger but it's much easier to hide today than decades ago
But if anyone thinks the collegiate athletic product will be BETTER because 17-22 YOs can fulfill their EVERY DESIRE right now; you're mistaken.
There are plenty of problems with the current system; the Power 5 Schools and their whack job fan bases, BIG Alumni DONORS are as much to blame as the ncaa
It's no better today than it was decades ago, the $$ amounts are larger but it's much easier to hide today than decades ago
Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
TwoMinuteDrill
The Sycamore Level
Here is an out of the box idea.
This would only apply to the two main revenue sports Men's basketball and football. I believe the playing field is more level in non revenue sports like baseball and track. Example; ISU had two qualifiers to Oregon and ISU baseball made NCAA last year.
The idea is the athlete from an FCS school can transfer after his first full year to any NCCA school with no penalty or loss of playing time. However, the acquiring school would have to fully fund for three years 1.5 ADDITIONAL scholarships plus 50% of the vacated scholarship to the FCS school that is losing the player,and the scholarship the athlete is vacating would come back. In effect the FCS school would have 1.5 extra scholarships over current maximum ans save money on existing scholarship. If the player transfers his second year the FCS school would only receive 1 additional scholarship for two years and 25% of vacated scholarship. You could cap it at 4 total scholarships in Basketball and 8 in football (or what ever number makes sense). The qualifier is FCS or mid major basketball school must currently be fully funding all eligible scholarships to qualify. I thought I read somewhere that Lansing gave up one scholarship to have Full Cost of Attendance funded at ISU. This is already a disadvantage vs larger better funded schools. So ISU would have to add back that scholarship and football would also have to be fully funded.
I contend that ISU would have access to athletes not previously accessible both in football and basketball. Example; a highly recruited QB by P5 school might come to ISU for a year to prove his ability and if he preforms then moves on to P5. In this case he was probably sitting his first year at P5 anyway. This way P5 has film on a player at a much higher level than high school and can decide if he is really what they thought. On the other hand maybe the player doesn't preform to the highest level but is still a good FCS QB and finds a nice home at ISU. As I mentioned there is risk and reward for all involved. A five star recruit will have little interest in this as he probably thinks he will start right away. Finally, once max additional scholarships are reached no athlete transfer is allowed.
Now the FCS football or mid major basketball school has additional scholarships not coming out of there budget and providing them with a deeper roster. Which especially in basketball can really be an advantage. If the player is a superstar then ISU receives some of the benefit of his services. They probably wouldn't have been able to get him anyway. To be eligible the player must make certain progress toward their degree, have a minimum GPA and no run ins with the law. If however after two years the player does not transfer his last two years of eligibility are only available at first school.
Yes I think big time college revenue sports is a business and is really not about the student athlete. As mentioned above non revenue sports would not qualify for this.
Let the hand wringing begin!!!
This would only apply to the two main revenue sports Men's basketball and football. I believe the playing field is more level in non revenue sports like baseball and track. Example; ISU had two qualifiers to Oregon and ISU baseball made NCAA last year.
The idea is the athlete from an FCS school can transfer after his first full year to any NCCA school with no penalty or loss of playing time. However, the acquiring school would have to fully fund for three years 1.5 ADDITIONAL scholarships plus 50% of the vacated scholarship to the FCS school that is losing the player,and the scholarship the athlete is vacating would come back. In effect the FCS school would have 1.5 extra scholarships over current maximum ans save money on existing scholarship. If the player transfers his second year the FCS school would only receive 1 additional scholarship for two years and 25% of vacated scholarship. You could cap it at 4 total scholarships in Basketball and 8 in football (or what ever number makes sense). The qualifier is FCS or mid major basketball school must currently be fully funding all eligible scholarships to qualify. I thought I read somewhere that Lansing gave up one scholarship to have Full Cost of Attendance funded at ISU. This is already a disadvantage vs larger better funded schools. So ISU would have to add back that scholarship and football would also have to be fully funded.
I contend that ISU would have access to athletes not previously accessible both in football and basketball. Example; a highly recruited QB by P5 school might come to ISU for a year to prove his ability and if he preforms then moves on to P5. In this case he was probably sitting his first year at P5 anyway. This way P5 has film on a player at a much higher level than high school and can decide if he is really what they thought. On the other hand maybe the player doesn't preform to the highest level but is still a good FCS QB and finds a nice home at ISU. As I mentioned there is risk and reward for all involved. A five star recruit will have little interest in this as he probably thinks he will start right away. Finally, once max additional scholarships are reached no athlete transfer is allowed.
Now the FCS football or mid major basketball school has additional scholarships not coming out of there budget and providing them with a deeper roster. Which especially in basketball can really be an advantage. If the player is a superstar then ISU receives some of the benefit of his services. They probably wouldn't have been able to get him anyway. To be eligible the player must make certain progress toward their degree, have a minimum GPA and no run ins with the law. If however after two years the player does not transfer his last two years of eligibility are only available at first school.
Yes I think big time college revenue sports is a business and is really not about the student athlete. As mentioned above non revenue sports would not qualify for this.
Let the hand wringing begin!!!
Sounds like our federal income tax code.
Really? than you haven't completed your taxes in decades.
the idea above contains 452 words (counting from "the athlete... to ...at first school.)
the tax foundation (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/federal-tax-laws-and-regulations-are-now-over-10-million-words-long ) states the tax code (laws & regulations) contains over 10M words...
I believe some conferences penalize athletes and schools if athletes transfer between member schools... obviously the $ec doesn't (See Newton, Scam FLA - JC - Auburn...)
TwoMinute's idea is so logical, that it'll never be considered - sadly
Don't get me started on our tax code. Another example of our STUPID congress sitting on their hands and not fixing things that need to be fixed.