1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Should football players have to sit out a year after a transfer?

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Jens1893, Dec 10, 2007.

?

Should student athletes have to sit out a year if they transfer?

  1. Yes

    83.3%
  2. No

    16.7%
  1. Jens1893

    Jens1893 Moderator Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    33,940
    Likes Received:
    3,269
    I saw this discussion on a board I sometimes visit like a week ago and I think the topic is interesting, so I´d just like to hear what people on here think. The main point on there was that coaches can change schools over night, but yet the student athletes are the only people in College FB who are expected to keep their word or who are penalized (by losing a year of their eligbility if they transfer) for not doing so.

    This post by Colinski in the Recruiting forum made me want to start this thread

    Do they commit to the school or rather the coaching staff? I am aware that this would probably open the floodgates, but do you think it´s a fair that a player can´t transfer without penalty if there is a coaching change and the new coach has no use for the guy in his system?

    Don´t really have an opinion myself, just want to see what people on here think.
     
  2. RalphieMalph

    RalphieMalph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    4,723
    Likes Received:
    176
    You'd be opening up pandora's box with this one; even if you limited the transferring rights to programs that had just gone under a coaching change, you'd end up with an absolute mess.

    Imagine a worst case scenario for a program... a PR nightmare a la CU's "scandal" but mixed with a coaching change at the same time - the players are getting treated like crap by the press and their community, they no longer have any loyalty to their coaching staff... you'd have players jumping ship like nobody's business. Not only would the next coach have to deal with cleaning up the previous coach's mess, he'd also have to land 40+ recruits to have a full team come August.
     
  3. El Gringo

    El Gringo Pura Vida Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,171
    Likes Received:
    583
    I think there should be an exception to the sit out one year rule if a player's head coach leaves, and an exception to the exception if the player wants to transfer within the conference.

    Thus, this year Marlon Lucky could transfer and play in '08 at CSU, but would have to sit a year if he transfered to CU.
     
  4. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,511
    Likes Received:
    4,509
    Coaches that move typically have to get the school that is hiring them to agree to buy out the existing contract. I have no problem with the rule. Transfers happen all the time, and I can only think of one example of when a kid managed to bamboozle the NCAA into allowing him to transfer without sitting out a year. It turns out that that particular kid ended up serving his transfer year on the bench anyway, so it wasn't like he really got any special treatment. :lol:

    Anyway, to address the issue, I think it's entirely appropriate to make the kid sit out a year. There are consequences for your decisions. If there were no consequences, then there'd be transfers every time a kid didn't get to start or if his feelings got hurt.
     
  5. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,511
    Likes Received:
    4,509
    I disagree with that. The kid is supposed to be commiting to a school, not a coach. As a potential recruit, you have to weigh the possibilities of whether that particular coach will still be there in 5 years when you leave. Of course there's no way to predict it for sure, but it's part of the process.
     
  6. 66BUFF

    66BUFF FTW Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    7,865
    Likes Received:
    315
    :lol::lol:

    :drink::smokin:
     
  7. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,511
    Likes Received:
    4,509
    I understand that reality is different from the way it's supposed to be, but a kid is SUPPOSED to commit to the school, not the coach. So there needs to be consequenses if he changes his mind.

    Hey, the whole world is filled with decisions and consequences. One of the consequences of transferring to another D-1 school is that you are required to sit out a year. Them's the rules. Of all the ridiculous and absurd rules the NCAA has put in place, that one actually makes sense.
     
  8. 66BUFF

    66BUFF FTW Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    7,865
    Likes Received:
    315
    give the player the option to reimburse the school for 1 year of the scholly.
     
  9. BehindEnemyLines

    BehindEnemyLines beware the habu Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    14,591
    Likes Received:
    928
    I think, under ncaa rules, the player and gaining school can ask to have the one-year rule waived. But (and this is the weird part) the former school has some say in the matter - they can recommend for or against the waiver.

    Didn't this happen with M Houston? He didn't see the field much with CU one year, then transferred to and played the next year for the lammies. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember it happening that way.

    At any rate, I think the rule keeps schools from turning these young men into roving mercenaries.
     
  10. wsp4820

    wsp4820 Sally Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,229
    Likes Received:
    1,557
    I see the slippery slope argument, but it still slays me that the coaches can get "fired" make 4mm in a buyout and then still work for more money the next year if they want. The kid who came to School X b/c they run the option and worked his way up the depth charts so he is ready to start in his jr/sr year gets totally ****ing hosed when School X decides instead to bring in a coach that runs a NFL passing style offense. If the kid is a senior he literally has no recourse if he's already used his redshirt. That just doesn't seem right.

    Some might say it is unconscionable...
     
  11. buffwoman526

    buffwoman526 Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    Messages:
    9,813
    Likes Received:
    509
    If I remember correctly, MH fit into some alleged exception to the rule that was never publicized. I agree with the rule, I don't agree with not publicizing the exceptions.
     
  12. colinski

    colinski Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    834
    Likes Received:
    6
    Just to be clear, I was writing about a different issue -- recruiting. Specifically, I was referring to the fact that some of UCLA's commits are now looking elsewhere and might want to come here. At this point, they have no "commitment," per se. They only have an expressed desire to play at UCLA, under the now fired coach Dorrell.

    Once an athlete signs their LOI they do have a legal commitment to a university. Allowing free movement after that point could open a pandora's box of tampering and other problems. My comment was about a different issue.

    Recruits are frequently going to revisit their choice of school when the coaching staff experiences turnover, because part of their reason for picking the school is no longer operative. But part of why I brought up the subject was because of Stoops' dishonest tactics in recruiting Lynn Kotoa, and I wouldn't want it to appear that CU was engaging in a similar tactic. According to one of the posters here at Allbuffs, there are a number of UCLA recruits who have expressed a desire that CU contact them (i.e.,"wished CU would"). Some of the UCLA verbal commits had previously notified CU of their possible interest in attending CU, others, apparently, have only recently become interested in CU because of the Dorrell firing.
     
  13. Buffarino

    Buffarino Math - how does it work? Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,562
    Likes Received:
    788
    That's a biggie with me. The coach that recruited me to play baseball left when I was a sophomore. I could have left - no biggie. All I would have had to do was go to a non-D-III school. But for guys in D-I your choice is either go to a D-II school or sit a year and that sucks.
     
  14. BehindEnemyLines

    BehindEnemyLines beware the habu Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    14,591
    Likes Received:
    928
    That could be correct.

    Still, I recall hearing something about a proviso where the former institution can give the ok for a player to participate the next year at a new school. Whether it's still an option.... not sure. :huh:

    The whole MH ordeal was bizarre, from the git-go.
     
  15. Clean Undies

    Clean Undies Flagship of the 12-Pac Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,296
    Likes Received:
    5,981
    What's missing from this discussion is organized representation from the student-athletes. No agent or union represents the players. Whether the issue is money or freedom to play, the student athletes get the short end of the stick at the negotiating table.

    My 'no' vote is based on the 'mercenary' arguement. The NFL is harder for me to enjoy with each passing year because the free agency. With the exception of a few franchise players, we fans end up cheering for laundary, not teams that reflect the community. As a fan, I like the continuity in the existing rule.

    Who knows who would have been left on the Buffs this year after GB split if every team were to have one less barrier from raiding the CU roster. The fact there was both a carrot and a stick keeping players like Hugh, Wheatley and Polymbus worked out well from this fan's perspective.
     
  16. MiamiBuffs

    MiamiBuffs Wᴉɐɯᴉ qnɟɟs Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    36,143
    Likes Received:
    2,026
    I dont have a problem with them sitting out a year but I do have a problem with them losing a year of eligibility. I think that the sit out year should be deffered year instead of a lost of year of playing time.
     
  17. BeachBronco

    BeachBronco Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    25
    Yes, and without a doubt, college football is semi-pure unlike the steroid potsmoking NFL, I do not wish to see some sort of free agency in college like we see in the NFL. I said before the season that if Sam Keller couldn't even win the starting job at ASU what makes anyone think that NU would be the cream of the crop with him at the helm this season, I think history has vindicated me.
     
  18. CarolinaBuff

    CarolinaBuff Weekend Poster Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,651
    Likes Received:
    523
    :yeahthat:

    Players would be transferring left and right.
     

Share This Page