What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

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

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


  • Total voters
    36

Jens1893

Club Member
Club Member
Junta Member
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

It's one thing to lie to a recruit, like Stoops did with Katoa, but it's quite another thing when the athlete himself is initiating the contact. The situation they committed to no longer exists. I'm sympathetic to the plight of a school that undergoes a coaching change, but it's like an unintended bait-and-switch for the athlete. It's not "which school" one plays for but "whom."

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
:lol::lol:

:drink::smokin:

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.
 
...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.

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.
 
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...
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
I think there should be an exception to the sit out one year rule if a player's head coach leaves

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

:yeahthat:

Players would be transferring left and right.
 
Back
Top