- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NCAA committee considering 7-figure fines, head coach suspensions for transfer violations
Posted on 2/25/26 at 3:27 pm
Posted on 2/25/26 at 3:27 pm
quote:
INDIANAPOLIS — Changes to the college football calendar — and transfer policy — may be on the way.
During meetings this week here, the NCAA Football Oversight Committee coalesced around several concepts related to the calendar and transfers, including a proposal to impose stiff penalties on schools that accept transfers outside of the portal window. Those penalties include a multi-million-dollar fine, multi-game suspensions for head coaches and the loss of roster spots.
Multiple sources with knowledge of the concepts spoke to Yahoo Sports under condition of anonymity.
The committee relayed some of those proposed penalties later on Wednesday, including prohibiting the head coach from all football (recruiting and on-field coaching) and administrative duties through six games; a fine of 20% of a school’s football budget; and requiring a school to reduce the number of roster spots by five for the next season.
Sources told Yahoo Sports that the committee also took steps toward potential changes to the calendar, including (1) keeping the transfer portal window in January, (2) giving coaches flexibility to move some spring practices to the summer and (3) allowing schools to open the season in Week Zero starting in 2027.
The Oversight Committee — led by Buffalo athletic director Mark Alnutt and Georgia athletic director Josh Brooks — spent the last two days meeting in Indianapolis over the calendar and transfer situation. All of these concepts are only potential recommendations that now enter a socialization and review process among member schools. The recommendations — once formalized this spring — must be approved by the DI cabinet.
The most significant of the concepts — penalties levied on a school and head coach for accepting a transfer outside of the portal window — stands to limit any movement this spring and could spark legal challenges from players and/or schools this spring and summer who wish to switch schools or who recruit a player to their school. The NCAA moved from two portals — December and April — to a single January portal this year.
The penalties may serve as deterrents for schools that wish to enhance their rosters with players from other schools after spring practice by partaking in what is described as “blind transferring” — when a player unenrolls at one school and enrolls at another outside of the portal window. The 15-day portal window in January is meant to be the only route in which players can communicate with coaches from another school without university staff members violating the NCAA’s tampering bylaws.
LINK
Posted on 2/25/26 at 3:32 pm to RLDSC FAN
Transferring is out of control but only allowing January transfers is a problem between the dozens of bowl games and the problems with a newly hired coach being able to take advantage of this window.
This isn’t going to help matters and I bet it results in the courts imposing rules changes on the NCAA again.
This isn’t going to help matters and I bet it results in the courts imposing rules changes on the NCAA again.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 3:41 pm to teke184
quote:
This isn’t going to help matters and I bet it results in the courts imposing rules changes on the NCAA again.
Yeah a kid is 100% going to transfer in the spring. This rule will be challenged, and a court will deem it's illegal (which it is). NCAA just made up a rule knowing they'll lose again in court... Another plea to Congress for help.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:09 pm to RLDSC FAN
quote:
The committee relayed some of those proposed penalties later on Wednesday, including prohibiting the head coach from all football (recruiting and on-field coaching) and administrative duties through six games; a fine of 20% of a school’s football budget; and requiring a school to reduce the number of roster spots by five for the next season.
So the NCAA wants to guarantee more court cases (that they'll probably lose given their history).
What college is going to give up 20% of their football budget without going to court?
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:46 pm to OleVaught14
No penalty for a player, no damages. What would the player sue for?
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:49 pm to Keltic Tiger
Well currently the NCAA has a rule against spring transfers (so penalizes player). Plus will argue that harsh penalties against school for taking a spring player illegally suffocates the free market and hurts the players value.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 4:55 pm to teke184
quote:
but only allowing January transfers
It's especially dumb because the teams still playing in the playoffs potentially lose players and can't bring in new ones as they are preparing for huge games.
They have really got to sit down with 25-30 people on a committee and figure this out. Get a sample of coaches, player reps, ADs, Presidents, Media from the main teams/conferences all need to get in a room and make a calendar that makes sense in today's world and they prob need to meet 2-3 times a year to adapt as the game adapts
Posted on 2/25/26 at 5:53 pm to OleVaught14
quote:
Well currently the NCAA has a rule against spring transfers (so penalizes player). Plus will argue that harsh penalties against school for taking a spring player illegally suffocates the free market and hurts the players value.
Every sport has a specific time frame for free agent signing and also for trading.
Any signings outside the specified period must meet certain criteria before it's allowed.
How is this any different?
There should also be "no contact" rules for coaching hires
This post was edited on 2/25/26 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 2/25/26 at 5:56 pm to magildachunks
quote:
How is this any different?
Those have all been agreed to with collective bargaining. This hasn't. This is akin to an employer saying you have 2 weeks out of the year to change jobs.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:28 pm to OleVaught14
quote:
Those have all been agreed to with collective bargaining. This hasn't. This is akin to an employer saying you have 2 weeks out of the year to change jobs.
The schools have agreed to the formation of an oversight organization whose purpose is to create a level of balance and equal guidelines for all conferences to adhere to.
The punishments proposed are not for the players,but for the institutions who have agreed to be8ng a part of the overall organization.
The players may not have a collective bargaining agreement, but the schools do.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:37 pm to magildachunks
quote:
The punishments proposed are not for the players,but for the institutions who have agreed to be8ng a part of the overall organization.
Those institutions have players though who would be affected by such punishments
Posted on 2/25/26 at 7:47 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
Those institutions have players though who would be affected by such punishments
Yep.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 8:03 pm to RLDSC FAN
Come on, man!
Do they expect some teenager who now has a couple of million dollars that he didn't have six months ago to keep track of days of the year and when and where the money started coming from.
The old I Don't know and I don't remember will be played loudly and often.
Do they expect some teenager who now has a couple of million dollars that he didn't have six months ago to keep track of days of the year and when and where the money started coming from.
The old I Don't know and I don't remember will be played loudly and often.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 8:23 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
Those institutions have players though who would be affected by such punishments
Companies have employees who would be affected by punishments from the SEC for breaking rules.
NFL teams have players who are affected by punishments levied at the franchise and the coaches too.
Stop the bullshite on the institutional level and you can still preserve CFB.
SEC should step in and tell Ole Miss and every member of the conference that the rulings of the NCAA are to be honored (all conferences should do this) or consequences will be imposed.
The only way to save the sport is for the Conferences to tell their members "No, you can't ignore the NCAA's rulings" and give their support to the NCAA.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 8:25 pm to RLDSC FAN
I have no sympathy for these kids that keep transferring. I hope ALL coaches and programs are held accountable for the shady free agency they’ve let it become.
I hope it all comes crashing down on every program.
I hope it all comes crashing down on every program.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 8:27 pm to OleVaught14
quote:
Well currently the NCAA has a rule against spring transfers (so penalizes player).
How so?
They used to have to sit out a year, this is no different. I'm sorry you missed out on the starting job, but you'll have to wait until next January to try another school.
Hell, maybe you get the chance to start during the season or after summer camp.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 8:35 pm to magildachunks
The problem that some of y'all seem to have is that y'all think that there is an inherent right to employment.
Y'all keep talking about the "rights" of the players, but this has nothing to do with the players. It's about the programs aka the businesses.
Businesses don't have rights, they have rules.
Y'all keep talking about the "rights" of the players, but this has nothing to do with the players. It's about the programs aka the businesses.
Businesses don't have rights, they have rules.
Posted on 2/25/26 at 8:40 pm to RLDSC FAN
Sorry, but the toothpaste is already out the tube. This mess can’t be cleaned up


Posted on 2/25/26 at 8:49 pm to magildachunks
quote:
They used to have to sit out a year, this is no different.
That rule was done away with due to legal pressure / challenges. So your would be correct, it is no different.
Popular
Back to top

7








