What's new

Evening the Playing Field with Scholarships, Transfers and perhaps more practices

GuySmiley

Shaft 72'
Club Member
This is my first post. I was wondering, what exactly are the Scholarship and Transfer possibilities for CU. Over months of reading and seeing the Transfer Portal, it is hard to discern whether CU has any opportunities for adding a few more transfers.

Here are some of my thoughts:

1. With so many bowls (60-80 teams) play in bowl games, which comes with extra practice, why doesn't the NCAA loosen restrictions for non-bowl teams. Since the Transfer portal is overrun, why not allow non-bowl teams to have a few more recruiting scholarships to improve faster? If you miss 2 bowls in a row, maybe more flexibility. This should help the regular cellar dwellers to improve. Similarly, when not give them 5 more practices in the fall and spring to help them improve. Many bad teams go through coaches every 3-5 years-- a new coach has a ton of extra work to do, why not have the players be there to take part? In the past, the focus was on academics but with the full year schedule now, it seems odd to have them stay on campus to lift and condition, but not improve on other skills.

2. For recruits that do well in the classroom (***. 2.8 and above) and give effort, why not have a number of non-playing injury scholarships. Anymore in college football, the players are on campus year-around, I would surmise they become state residents-- so the scholarship is cheaper. For kids that entered the transfer portal and are not picked up, I believe they should have an opportunity to return to their school and finish their degree. If they want to be part of the team, they can be welcomed back. At some positions, a player can get just buried on the depth chart; which may not be their fault. Despite the lifting, conditioning and meal plans, some kids are just no filling out like others. Predicting how an 18yo will project as a 21-23yo is a nearly impossible.

3. I am amazed at there being no real transfer restrictions. If you transfer within your division or your old school plays the new-destination team within 2 years, I believe that some restrictions are fair. The flip side of the coin, would be having them signed an NDA w/ non-compete provisions. In my legal experience, non-competes can be too broad, perhaps unenforceable but in more instances than not the new Coach/employer frequently do not want kids/employees that being plunder their old team/employer. They have reputations too! I do think that AD's (not Bill Snyder ADs) should have the final say, and Coaches should be liberal in permitting transfers subject to certain conditions. Even if an athlete goes to a school in your conference, a fair compromise would for them to sit out the game, practices in the week or two before the game. They cannot be in on film sessions for their old team.

4. I do like the grey-shirt and JUCO possibilities. In some cases, grey-shirting can work, in others the players just don't develop. Same with JUCO's, some turn out great; some marginal, some have injuries or cannot adjust.

5. I think a rule that permits transfers to move home is a good rule--maybe use a 100 mile radius or closest P-35 team to home. It was hard to see Izzy leave, but kids want their parents to be a part of their football career. Family issues can call them home, and these are usually valid reasons.

6. Rules should prohibit a mass exit of players to follow a head coach. Even more limitations should be in place for assistant coaches. Similarly, new coaches should have limits on running-kids off. If an athlete is doing decent in school, showing up to practice on time, and a good teammate, they should not be run off by a coach that wants to bring in their own players; even if the team will win faster. Good AD's and Conference Commissioners should step in and stop this practice.

Just some thoughts.
 

MtnBuff

Not allowed in Barzil 2
Club Member
Some interesting stuff.

I do agree that non-bowl teams should be given a few extra practices to balance for those the bowl teams get, it makes a difference.

The pros allow some extra contact with a new coach, maybe in college give a few extra days of spring ball and a couple extra in fall practice.

Schools can medically retire a player and keep him on scholarship without it counting against the team total. Out of state players do not become residents in most states but the idea of providing one additional year to complete a degree after 4 years of football makes some sense. It is hard to complete a degree in four years for many non-athletes. The time commitments of football make it harder, give them a chance to get a degree. Rules have recently changed I believe that make a football scholarship four years, not four one year scholarships so kids have better protection.

3-4 no comment

Yes transferring should be easier if transferring to a local school from one that is further away.

Last one will always be a problem because many kids commit to a coach, not a school. When the old coach leaves the new coach questions their loyalty and often the kids question the new coach who wants to establish his own culture. Tough situation without a good answer.
 

Buffs35

Well-Known Member
If you don't make a bowl game, your coaches should use the extra days recruiting good players, not spending time coaching.
 

FLounder

The Buffs will rise again!
Club Member
I’m more interested if you’re name is pronounced like Guy Fieri or Guy LaFleur.
 

GuySmiley

Shaft 72'
Club Member
Now with another year of bowl ineligibility stacking up and no extra practices, to keep this short, I just focus on the scholarships and transfers and things the NCAA, Power 5 etc... should consider:

1. For down teams like CU and other non-bowl teams in the interest of promoting competition doesn't it make sense to add +3 (maybe +5 for teams that miss bowls for consecutive years) to their yearly scholarship counter? Thereby, attempt to level the playing field a bit for "the haves" and "have nots." I feel bad for CU, but also the Kansas's, Maryland's, Rutgers, Oregon State's etc... that just cannot turn it around very often. I don't feel bad for Nubs.

2. Alternatively, they could sway the extra scholarships towards transfers, so long as that process is geared towards players receiving their degrees. For this (and other reasons), I like the tightened NCAA rules that make non-graduate transfer sit a year except for special circumstances. This would minimize the player down-side to the portal, with so many of them left out in the cold. Players should have an opportunity to get their degrees.

I guess the downside would be coaches that in-discriminantly use those rules to run off players in order to just flip a roster.
 

MiamiBuffs

Wᴉɐɯᴉ qnɟɟs
Club Member
Now with another year of bowl ineligibility stacking up and no extra practices, to keep this short, I just focus on the scholarships and transfers and things the NCAA, Power 5 etc... should consider:

1. For down teams like CU and other non-bowl teams in the interest of promoting competition doesn't it make sense to add +3 (maybe +5 for teams that miss bowls for consecutive years) to their yearly scholarship counter? Thereby, attempt to level the playing field a bit for "the haves" and "have nots." I feel bad for CU, but also the Kansas's, Maryland's, Rutgers, Oregon State's etc... that just cannot turn it around very often. I don't feel bad for Nubs.

2. Alternatively, they could sway the extra scholarships towards transfers, so long as that process is geared towards players receiving their degrees. For this (and other reasons), I like the tightened NCAA rules that make non-graduate transfer sit a year except for special circumstances. This would minimize the player down-side to the portal, with so many of them left out in the cold. Players should have an opportunity to get their degrees.

I guess the downside would be coaches that in-discriminantly use those rules to run off players in order to just flip a roster.
I think the whole system needs reforming. I agree the bowl ineligible should get more players.
 
Top