Is this a game changer or meh, big deal?

DeepSnap said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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".
 
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:
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).
 
WracerX said:
Only a matter of time before a disgruntled player takes their playbook with them going between rivals (fsu/miami).
Click to expand...

This is probably already happening, but good point anyway. Coaches need to update their hand signals every year.
 
Flywheel said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
andrew said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm evaluating it in light of the pending NCAA rule change which drove it.
 
Flywheel said:
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".
Click to expand...
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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top