Is this a game changer or meh, big deal?

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
23,198
As an aggravation, maybe.

In reality, all it does is widen the Transfer Portal.

And like the Portal, it'll take a few years to see the effects.
I think this removes a disadvantage from the ACC. I can't imagine this discouraged many players from transferring, but it obviously did prevent other ACC schools from getting them.

Thus this should strengthen the conference overall.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
3,762
I guess a fear would be that your better players might transfer to a school like Clemson, and we become like a minor league? I don't think that'd happen. If you're a player and you're having success at a place and are in the spotlight, why transfer and risk it? Maybe if we were a conference bottom-dweller like a Duke or a Vandy it'd be a concern.

I think given that Collins is a player's coach, we're more likely to be a destination for disaffected players from other ACC schools than the other way around.
 

BigDanT

Come and take it.
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
5,784
Depends on perspective:
A. You’re a top tier talent at a school who is rebuilding or doesn’t have a shot at winning a championship. You move to Clemson or insert powerhouse.

B. You’re a real overlooked talent because you’re sitting behind a world beater and first round draft pick. You move to find playing time and strengthen a squad by being one of the top five at your position.

Both are positive and could benefit any school from each perspective. It depends who’s on the receiving end. We all know the negatives are on the receiving end of the transfer though...
 

79tech

Flats Noob
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
509
i could see this leading to some intense dislike amongst league coaches. Like - "you are always trying to steal my players" to messaging betweeen players that coach says if you come play with us you will get more playing time" to "let's bad mouth every other league coach so he will not transfer to a rival".
 

Flywheel

What year is it?
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
13,788
What this will do more than anything is gut programs who fire their coaches as the entire team transfers out.

It'll put huge emphasis on well-managed transitions and good relationships within athletic departments going forward, and thereby result in more pay for coaches and personnel directors, as well as incentivizing schools to hire carefully. Recruiting is now about maintaining as well as signing day. That's a good thing for the sport IMO.

I say "game changer".
 
Last edited:

WracerX

Dr. Dunkingstein
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
16,634
This only really affects the extra year penalty for transferring to an in conference school. I don’t see it as a big deal. It is only a change of where an unhappy player would be transferring.

The top of the conference is still going to bring in the top players. It might help the bottom of the conference with players leaving Clem for more playing time.

Only a matter of time before a disgruntled player takes their playbook with them going between rivals (fsu/miami).
 

Flywheel

What year is it?
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
13,788
Only a matter of time before a disgruntled player takes their playbook with them going between rivals (fsu/miami).
This is probably already happening, but good point anyway. Coaches need to update their hand signals every year.
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
23,198
What this will do more than anything is gut programs who fire their coaches as the entire team transfers out.

It'll put huge emphasis on well-managed transitions and good relationships within athletic departments going forward, and thereby result in more pay for coaches and personnel directors, as well as incentivizing schools to hire carefully. Recruiting is now about maintaining as well as signing day. That's a good thing for the sport IMO.

I say "game changer".
I'm not sure I understand this logic. Players could already transfer to any non-ACC school and this rule wouldn't be applicable, right?

So from a "losing players during a coaching transition" perspective, this would only affect situations where a coach leaves and a player is really unhappy about it, but unwilling to play at a non-ACC school. I can't imagine that is something that occurs often.
 

Flywheel

What year is it?
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
13,788
I'm not sure I understand this logic. Players could already transfer to any non-ACC school and this rule wouldn't be applicable, right?

So from a "losing players during a coaching transition" perspective, this would only affect situations where a coach leaves and a player is really unhappy about it, but unwilling to play at a non-ACC school. I can't imagine that is something that occurs often.
I'm evaluating it in light of the pending NCAA rule change which drove it.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
23,220
What this will do more than anything is gut programs who fire their coaches as the entire team transfers out.

It'll put huge emphasis on well-managed transitions and good relationships within athletic departments going forward, and thereby result in more pay for coaches and personnel directors, as well as incentivizing schools to hire carefully. Recruiting is now about maintaining as well as signing day. That's a good thing for the sport IMO.

I say "game changer".
I think you are right that this will have a significant impact on the game, but it's probably too early to see all the ways it will. My suspicion is that, like most changes, it'll be for the worse.

For example, if you think this will increase coaching salaries... well, coaches getting paid *more* is a recipe for an even more skewed perspective within AA's and on teams. We already live in fantasy land, and this move is a result of that problem. Now we'll just have more of it.
 
Last edited:
Top