Sims + Clayton

BuzzLaw

StinGTalk destroyer
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
11,893
At some point in time some schools will tell the ncaa to pound sand. It is the mob plain and simple.
 

JJacket

Declared dead for tax purposes.
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
86,790
Not sure why you’re face-palming this. It’s not an argument I would have brought up, but IIRC the BayBay mess was oversaw by a UNC caseworker who was later removed from our case by the NCAA. That certainly smelled.
A case worker who essentially told our AD "Hey, don't communicate to your coach about the investigation" - which is exactly what an AD SHOULD do. It is his job as AD. That was the f'd-up-ed-est investigation.
 

thegtstunner08

Earl of Cheap Seats and Cold Pizza
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
2,748
Clayton’s tweet about the outcome tells me he’s got his head on straight. His perspective is 100 and I’m thankful we got him.
 

smokey_wasp

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
11,022
Every kid should get one no questions asked free transfer with immediate eligibility.

Could this policy hurt the game? Sure. Is it still worth implementing pro-player policies? Absolutely.
Exactly. The NCAA has proven unable or unwilling to consider individual waiver requests fairly, consistently or in a timely manner. Besides, these kids sign on the dotted line when they are HS seniors. Totally fair to give them a mulligan for a change of heart. Continuing down this path is going to create public backlash and I won't be surprised to see the NCAA lose a landmark court case or start having legislators step in, at some point.
 

Helluva Entrepreneur

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
158
Every kid should get one no questions asked free transfer with immediate eligibility.

Could this policy hurt the game? Sure. Is it still worth implementing pro-player policies? Absolutely.
I dont disagree that the players should have more control, but that policy would really hurt the smaller underdog schools and probably widen the gap between them and the powerhouses.

Recruiting is already very expensive and resource intensive. Already very hard for smaller programs to keep up with the factories. Imagine having to re-recruit every year because the bottom 1/4 of your roster transfers out to get playing time, after you've bared the expense of training, housing, educating them for 2 or 3 years. Imagine being the only power 5 team to offer a lesser known kid that turns out to be diamond in the rough, and after he breaks out his sophomore year, all the factory teams want him, so he transfers out to try to win a championship. You'd be setting up lower tier schools to act as farm systems for the big powerhouse programs.

I dont know what the exact solution is, but a free transfer scenario would be a öööö show, IMO.
 

Diseqc

Dodd-Like
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
47,790
I dont disagree that the players should have more control, but that policy would really hurt the smaller underdog schools and probably widen the gap between them and the powerhouses.

Recruiting is already very expensive and resource intensive. Already very hard for smaller programs to keep up with the factories. Imagine having to re-recruit every year because the bottom 1/4 of your roster transfers out to get playing time, after you've bared the expense of training, housing, educating them for 2 or 3 years. Imagine being the only power 5 team to offer a lesser known kid that turns out to be diamond in the rough, and after he breaks out his sophomore year, all the factory teams want him, so he transfers out to try to win a championship. You'd be setting up lower tier schools to act as farm systems for the big powerhouse programs.

I dont know what the exact solution is, but a free transfer scenario would be a öööö show, IMO.
And what about all the kids that were lied to by the factories that want to transfer out? Smart is building up that reputation right now.

I don’t think a free transfer policy is clearly in favor of big schools at all. But even if it is, so what? It’s time the players stop getting treated like property. The coaches are free to go wherever they want with no penalty.
 

smokey_wasp

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
11,022
I dont disagree that the players should have more control, but that policy would really hurt the smaller underdog schools and probably widen the gap between them and the powerhouses.

Recruiting is already very expensive and resource intensive. Already very hard for smaller programs to keep up with the factories. Imagine having to re-recruit every year because the bottom 1/4 of your roster transfers out to get playing time, after you've bared the expense of training, housing, educating them for 2 or 3 years. Imagine being the only power 5 team to offer a lesser known kid that turns out to be diamond in the rough, and after he breaks out his sophomore year, all the factory teams want him, so he transfers out to try to win a championship. You'd be setting up lower tier schools to act as farm systems for the big powerhouse programs.

I dont know what the exact solution is, but a free transfer scenario would be a öööö show, IMO.
Flip side of the coin is it would somewhat prevent the factories from just stockpiling talent and trapping them there for depth because they are afraid of losing a year. We got Ezzard, Clayton, Sims and Allen, all from factory-level programs. It would be a wash at worst, and best case scenario is it would actually benefit us.
 

Helluva Entrepreneur

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
158
And what about all the kids that were lied to by the factories that want to transfer out? Smart is building up that reputation right now.

I don’t think a free transfer policy is clearly in favor of big schools at all. But even if it is, so what? It’s time the players stop getting treated like property. The coaches are free to go wherever they want with no penalty.
You'd need to clarify "lied to". In legitimate fraud cases (whatever that might be, probably rare), I'd generally support a waiver consideration. If they were just led to believe they were going to be a superstar but get beat out and dont play, I dont know if I'd consider them having been lied to.

Either way, the top tier schools would be discarding their bottom guys that didnt pan out and trading up for the best players from the smaller schools. There would be a huge transfer pool every year and teams would have to commit resources to re-recruiting those players. It would absolutely be harder for smaller programs with smaller budgets.

I dont agree that they are treated like "property". I think they are treated like players with non-compete contracts intended to protect the fairness and level the playing field of a supposed amateur sport. It could probably use some work, admittedly.

If you want to give everyone free transfers, why just one? Are they "property" with restrictions or not? Are you ok with school dropping kids near the bottom of the roster as they see fit? I dont mean the occasional "encouraging them to look for other opportunities" or discreetly pushing them out (which is very poorly received publicly if done to often). I mean every year, "hey you 15 guys aren't good enough, you are cut." That's what professionals go through. The amateur nature of the sport has it's benefits for most of the players, no doubt.
 

Diseqc

Dodd-Like
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
47,790
Either way, the top tier schools would be discarding their bottom guys that didnt pan out and trading up for the best players from the smaller schools. There would be a huge transfer pool every year and teams would have to commit resources to re-recruiting those players. It would absolutely be harder for smaller programs with smaller budgets.
Well I also think the NCAA should mandate 4 year scholarships that can’t be dropped for performance reasons. If you recruit a dud, that sucks for you.

Hard 85 man 4 year scholarship limit. Stop the oversigning bullshit.
 

Helluva Entrepreneur

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
158
Flip side of the coin is it would somewhat prevent the factories from just stockpiling talent and trapping them there for depth because they are afraid of losing a year. We got Ezzard, Clayton, Sims and Allen, all from factory-level programs. It would be a wash at worst, and best case scenario is it would actually benefit us.
I think things look a lot different when your starters/stars are also getting poached by those same big schools. Schools that didn't offer our kids out of highschool, but now want them after they showed out for a year or 2. Either way, we are stuck with the burden of recruiting twice as hard AND keeping our current players happy enough not to transfer, which probably requires a healthy dose of stringing along, lying, and babysitting.
 

Diseqc

Dodd-Like
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
47,790
I think things look a lot different when your starters/stars are also getting poached by those same big schools. Schools that didn't offer our kids out of highschool, but now want them after they showed out for a year or 2. Either way, we are stuck with the burden of recruiting twice as hard AND keeping our current players happy enough not to transfer, which probably requires a healthy dose of stringing along, lying, and babysitting.
Again, so what? If the players aren’t happy then who are we to beholden them to a decision they made often times before they were 18 when coaches aren’t held to the same standard?
 

Helluva Entrepreneur

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
158
Well I also think the NCAA should mandate 4 year scholarships that can’t be dropped for performance reasons. If you recruit a dud, that sucks for you.

Hard 85 man 4 year scholarship limit. Stop the oversigning bullshit.
In our current restricted transfer situation, I'm generally not opposed to that, as long as teams are able to release guys for legitimate disciplinary reasons. In a free for all transfer situation, I'm not in favor of guaranteed scholarships.
 

smokey_wasp

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
11,022
I think things look a lot different when your starters/stars are also getting poached by those same big schools. Schools that didn't offer our kids out of highschool, but now want them after they showed out for a year or 2. Either way, we are stuck with the burden of recruiting twice as hard AND keeping our current players happy enough not to transfer, which probably requires a healthy dose of stringing along, lying, and babysitting.
Keep them happy, then. 404TheCulture
 

Helluva Entrepreneur

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
158
Again, so what? If the players aren’t happy then who are we to beholden them to a decision they made often times before they were 18 when coaches aren’t held to the same standard?
High school kids can't transfer indiscriminately without having to sit out a year either.

No one cares if peewee kids jump around because they are playing for fun and not getting compensated. Colleges commit a lot of costs to the players and I think it's fair that there should be at least some expectation of commitment from the players to that school. Again, it's an amateur sport with specific rules in place to allow hundreds of schools of varying size and financial means to compete on an artificially level (as much as possible) playing field. If you want to go full free-market then college football as we know it falls apart. I know some people are ok with that. I'm personally not.

There is room for improvement, but I dont think using the metric of "is every player 'happy' all the time" is a good plan.
 

midatlantech

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
6,681
The system absolutely reeks. A Top Ten Program QB regularly gets their waiver, while a DE for Tech will never. Having said that, did Diaz support Ezzard? If Smart wants to keep signing 5 star QB recruits every year, he has to let them leave when they don't get the job. And that's the rub. He can successfully pull that off as a top program, so the system continues to always favor the big teams. Top QB's will not go to a small school who has a starting or Top QB already as they can't move you later. It just reeks.
 

ElCidBUZZingFAN

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
24,540
I dont disagree that the players should have more control, but that policy would really hurt the smaller underdog schools and probably widen the gap between them and the powerhouses.

Recruiting is already very expensive and resource intensive. Already very hard for smaller programs to keep up with the factories. Imagine having to re-recruit every year because the bottom 1/4 of your roster transfers out to get playing time, after you've bared the expense of training, housing, educating them for 2 or 3 years. Imagine being the only power 5 team to offer a lesser known kid that turns out to be diamond in the rough, and after he breaks out his sophomore year, all the factory teams want him, so he transfers out to try to win a championship. You'd be setting up lower tier schools to act as farm systems for the big powerhouse programs.

I dont know what the exact solution is, but a free transfer scenario would be a öööö show, IMO.
It's illegal to recruit a kid from another team. There's already rules in place to stop the poaching.
 

ElCidBUZZingFAN

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
24,540
This öööö is just laughably absurd.


I can't help but feel they didn't take these as individual requests but instead figured a single school getting 4 or more in a single season was too much so they just denied them all.
 
Top