We have this anyway. Whenever a school tries to leverage the rules to prevent a transfer, all that happens is that the national media rips the HC apart for it, he and the school eventually cave, and the player transfers anyway. Rule doesn't work.
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!
NCAA D1 Council Vote this Week - Early Signing Day & 10th Assistant
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
I feel as though the bigger and more substantial proposed rule change is the immediate eligibility for transfer players.
SuperiorBuff
Well-Known Member
I would like both with one caveat, no inter-conference transfers.
That'd be something to consider. Hopefully if they do approve that next April, there are a number of caveats to it. No way can it just be open season on kids transferring.
Immediate eligibility of transfers is a threat to competitiveness. I saw this first hand in Women's golf.
My daughter's team lost 3 key seniors as they knew they could go further in the playoffs if they transferred en masse to a school that was offering a more prestigious piece of paper (diploma). That just felt awful and it's not right.
How would we feel if Stanford, UW, USC and UCLA got to pick thru our roster a few years back when we weren't winning. Come here and win!
That would suck and it just makes it harder for the rebuilding programs. I'm 100% against.
My daughter's team lost 3 key seniors as they knew they could go further in the playoffs if they transferred en masse to a school that was offering a more prestigious piece of paper (diploma). That just felt awful and it's not right.
How would we feel if Stanford, UW, USC and UCLA got to pick thru our roster a few years back when we weren't winning. Come here and win!
That would suck and it just makes it harder for the rebuilding programs. I'm 100% against.
CU wouldn't have lost any more games.
A year to "acclimate" to a new school? WTF?
What I favor is that you get 5 years of college eligibility. No redshirting. You can play all 5 years. I'd be ok with keeping in a medical hardship waiver for someone who missed 2 full seasons to injury.
Then, if you graduate and have eligibility left you can transfer without sitting out a year. If you transfer before graduating, you've got a 1-year acclimation so you have to sit out at the new school.
Then, if you graduate and have eligibility left you can transfer without sitting out a year. If you transfer before graduating, you've got a 1-year acclimation so you have to sit out at the new school.
Bill Snyder would like a word with you
He caved
CU wouldn't have ever gotten out of the f'ing hole either.
Cannot have open season where teams like AZ and ASU, who looked really attractive 2-3 years ago are picking off Awuzie, Tedrick, etc. There absolutely has to be 1 year of eligibility loss or it becomes complete and total free agent shopping. That will be the end of CFB. (and probably most of our guys stay the course). But if a HC leaves, all your upper class guys could leave, free pass? That's awful.
No, but guys like Awuzie, Tedric, Richardson, etc probably would have left for more prominent programs. It would become NFL free agency lite, where coaches would have to then not only recruit high school players, but recruit players on other teams and play defense on their own players. It would completely destroy what little competitive balance there still is in college football.
If they want to allow it, maybe stipulate that the player has to transfer out of conference and for every transfer that a school takes, it costs 2 scholarship spots. I don't know but there would have to be a way to keep it from becoming the Wild West.
Talk about selling the program short. I don't buy your contention that the only thing keeping good football players at CU is restrictive NCAA rules.
It wouldn't be a free for all either. There are still caps on the number of scholarship players allowed per team. USC can't cherry pick a bunch of transfer players each year. There are still plenty of reasons CU is attractive beyond winning as well. The specific players you just accused of being fickle woulsn't necessarily leave.
What's to stop USC from cutting players that haven't lived up to their recruiting bill, in favor of bringing in a stud that developed at a lesser program?
High school coaches, just like they do today.
Idk, sounds like opening up Pandora box.
You mean like 'bama?