- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: NIL is NOT the evil. The Transfer Portal is the Problem.
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:34 am to alajones
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:34 am to alajones
quote:
As can students who don’t play sports. On principle, I’ve never liked that students were bound to their schools.
If a student transfers every year will they graduate? Most schools only accept a certain amount of transfer credits. So, after a certain point you are bound to a school unless you want to redo a bunch of credits.
1
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:34 am to Tigercowboy
I agree. You transfer without graduating or head coach leaving, you sit out a year.
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:34 am to Tigercowboy
I think everyone recognizes that unlimited, unrestricted transfers are the largest issue currently facing college football. Everything else is a compounding issue.
There used to be rules requiring players to sit after transferring. There have been lawsuits that have argued the NCAA cannot restrict transfers in such a way, which is why those rules are no longer in place.
This is all leading to players being deemed employees, and subsequently they will have employment contracts. Just like the NFL, just like coaches. We just haven't gotten there yet.
quote:
Put rules in place such as…. If you transfer from a Power 4 school you can only got to a non power school without sitting a year. If you transfer P-4 to P-4 you must sit a year (it’s allowed to be a redshirt year if you have it available).
Non Power 4 schools players can transfer to P-4 conference but they must be a Red Shirt Sophomore or Junior to Transfer. It helps the smaller schools.
There used to be rules requiring players to sit after transferring. There have been lawsuits that have argued the NCAA cannot restrict transfers in such a way, which is why those rules are no longer in place.
This is all leading to players being deemed employees, and subsequently they will have employment contracts. Just like the NFL, just like coaches. We just haven't gotten there yet.
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:35 am to Tigercowboy
It's the cumulative impact of both. No limit on, or regulation of, financial incentive, and no consequences for transfer.
It's early days, so it's the wild west. Public policy takes time to catch up to industry changes... but something has to give.
It's early days, so it's the wild west. Public policy takes time to catch up to industry changes... but something has to give.
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:36 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:
think everyone recognizes that unlimited, unrestricted transfers are the largest issue currently facing college football. Everything else is a compounding issue.
If that’s the case, people do a bad job expressing their thoughts because the entire conversation around the sport is built around NIL. People describe it like NIL craziness is the reason for the portal craziness when the opposite is true
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:37 am to Tigercowboy
quote:I mean, that’s a factor that the student should consider, but it doesn’t prevent them from doing it and still being able to go to classes at their new school.
If a student transfers every year will they graduate? Most schools only accept a certain amount of transfer credits. So, after a certain point you are bound to a school unless you want to redo a bunch of credits.
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:37 am to Tigercowboy
Every day someone, actually multiple someones, starts a topic expressing a "solution" to everyone's woes about prevalence of transferring. Yet, they fail to realize their "solution"...establishing rules that require transfers to sit out year, has already been litigated and, from the NCAA's perspective, resolved. The NCAA can't put such restrictions on the transfers.
The initial rule was one "free" transfer. After that, multi-time transfers would have to sit a year unless a waiver was granted by the NCAA. Last year, at almost EXACTLY this same date, there were hundreds of basketball players sitting out because they were 2x (or more) transfers. A TRO to prohibit the NCAA from enforcing the rule was requested in a West Virginia federal court. Actually, the AGs of several states were requesting the TRO. The court ruled in favor of the AG and enjoined the NCAA from enforcing the 2x transfer "sit out" rule on the basis that it was an unlawful restraint of trade.
The NCAA recognizing it was likely going to lose additional litigation on the issue did not challenge it further. Instead, they changed the rule in April which allows players (in good academic standing) to transfer freely without penalty.
So, the OP, and others, can continue to bring up the "novel" proposal of forcing transfers to sit (like it used to be), but it will be a useless conversation. That issue has already been decided.
The initial rule was one "free" transfer. After that, multi-time transfers would have to sit a year unless a waiver was granted by the NCAA. Last year, at almost EXACTLY this same date, there were hundreds of basketball players sitting out because they were 2x (or more) transfers. A TRO to prohibit the NCAA from enforcing the rule was requested in a West Virginia federal court. Actually, the AGs of several states were requesting the TRO. The court ruled in favor of the AG and enjoined the NCAA from enforcing the 2x transfer "sit out" rule on the basis that it was an unlawful restraint of trade.
The NCAA recognizing it was likely going to lose additional litigation on the issue did not challenge it further. Instead, they changed the rule in April which allows players (in good academic standing) to transfer freely without penalty.
So, the OP, and others, can continue to bring up the "novel" proposal of forcing transfers to sit (like it used to be), but it will be a useless conversation. That issue has already been decided.
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:40 am to Miglez
Players don't have buyouts bud. The adults are speaking. Go back to the kids table.
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:41 am to Alt26
quote:
o, the OP, and others, can continue to bring up the "novel" proposal of forcing transfers to sit (like it used to be), but it will be a useless conversation. That issue has already been decided.
It’s been decided under the current construction of the sport. But the solution is and always has been player collective bargaining with a more traditional revenue money as a private organization.
Problem is the NCAA/ the teams don’t want to be on the hook for the cash either, they want to boosters and fans to keep the money train going, so they are willing to bleed the pig dry as long as they can until something forces their hand, which is how we ended up here in the first place. NCAA could’ve gotten ahead of this 20-30 years ago but decided to let the money printer go burrr instead
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:43 am to alajones
quote:
I mean, that’s a factor that the student should consider, but it doesn’t prevent them from doing it and still being able to go to classes at their new school.
The ultimate goal of a student is graduation and if you transfer and have to take an additional 30 credits at your new school that’s a year you have to “sit out” before you hit graduation. It’s a penalty just like a player who can practice but can’t get on the field.
This post was edited on 12/13/24 at 9:44 am
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:46 am to Tigercowboy
Didn’t read but he title of the thread nailed it
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:51 am to Tigercowboy
Agreed. NCAA cant do anything about NIL, because the courts ruled it was legal to pay players. NCAA should crack down on transfers. Should have to sit out a year. That would keep people from abusing NIL to entice transfers to their school.
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:52 am to Tigercowboy
Not one thing is the issue, it is the combination that makes roster management a bit dicey. Unlimited transfers is the biggest contributor, IMO. I say 1 free transfer as an undergrad then you have to sit a year after that one with exceptions for coaching changes plus a list of items you can apply for that require approval from a sitting panel the NCAA sets up that has a set time-limit to approve/deny the request and make sure there are very specific guidelines.
The address revenue sharing and NIL rules.
The address revenue sharing and NIL rules.
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:52 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:
This is all leading to players being deemed employees, and subsequently they will have employment contracts. Just like the NFL, just like coaches. We just haven't gotten there yet.
I can’t wait for the first Non-Compete Agreement in a players employment contract.
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:55 am to Tigercowboy
quote:
The ultimate goal of a student is graduation and if you transfer and have to take an additional 30 credits at your new school that’s a year you have to “sit out” before you hit graduation. It’s a penalty just like a player who can practice but can’t get on the field.
Most of these guys really don't give a damn about graduating. The only reason they are enrolled as a student at the school is because they have to be in order to play on the football team. If they transfer 4-5x, making ever increasing money along the way they don't really care if they ever graduate. It's simply a "job", and in order to be eligible for the job they have to be a student.
On that note, just wait until the next hot topic starts really making headway, elimination of the rules that players only have 4 years of eligibility (absent waivers). Those lawsuits are already starting to make their way through the courts (see Diego Pavia arguing his 2 years in JUCO shouldn't count against his D-1 eligibility...which is technically over after the bowl game). We are not very far off from the very real potential of guys essentially becoming "professional" college football players. Meaning they will play 6, 7, 8+ years of college football (without any special waivers/exemptions) as long as they are simply enrolled as a student at the school. In a nutshell, Pavia's argument is preventing him from playing college football any more, because he is out of eligibility, is preventing him from earning a living as a college football player.
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:56 am to wildtigercat93
Transfer portal should only be for players who have completed their junior year period. The nil should be capped at 200,000 with them getting 1000 a month and they have to sign a form that they will receive the rest after they graduated
Posted on 12/13/24 at 9:57 am to EvrybodysAllAmerican
quote:
NCAA should crack down on transfers. Should have to sit out a year
Is this an appropriate use of the term "Germans"?
The NCAA tried. They lost that battle.
Posted on 12/13/24 at 10:04 am to Alt26
quote:
Most of these guys really don't give a damn about graduating.
No shite… this was in response to someone comparing todays “student athlete” and a normal student being able to transfer as much of as they want without penalty.
To the rest of your post:
At certain point, just start a minor league for football and let players go straight to the league from high school like Major League Baseball and develop kids there… Why even pretend it’s college football by attaching a schools name to it?
College Football isn’t what it used to be and it sucks for the sport and the fan. The further we go away from student athletes to paid professional the worse it gets..
Posted on 12/13/24 at 10:10 am to Tigercowboy
Both are as they should be.
Posted on 12/13/24 at 10:11 am to BZ504
quote:
Yep, but they go hand in hand. May players sit out a year would help.
Then make coaches sit out when they leave their current schools.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News