Proposed expansion of Transfer Rule

This is stupid. What about the past year of transfer portal makes the council think players needed more freedom to screw themselves over???
 
well according to this if the semester splits the season then someone could in theory play a week 12 game at GT then play for BAMA in playoff.

then in theory you could have one or more players that enter portal after week 12 and the 4 playoff teams in NIL bidding wars.
 
GTWannaBee said:
This is stupid. What about the past year of transfer portal makes the council think players needed more freedom to screw themselves over???
Click to expand...

I guess the schools will have an increased responsibility, too, according to this.


But I tend to agree it's not a good thing. I was all for the one-time transfer rule. This will definitely diminish my interest in recruiting.
 
Georgia Tech Baseball my friends. Focus your energy there. I know Tech football often has brought pain anyway, but there is no longer even a carrot of hope dangling.
 
Skydog said:
well according to this if the semester splits the season then someone could in theory play a week 12 game at GT then play for BAMA in playoff.

then in theory you could have one or more players that enter portal after week 12 and the 4 playoff teams in NIL bidding wars.
Click to expand...
Interesting thought and a most logical outcome.
 
These "student" athletes are about to learn the realities of capitalism and how commodities are actually handled in a free market. The players somehow think the schools are going to be required to honor any kind of commitment when the athlete doesn't have to.

The children have gotten what they wanted and are none the wiser to how it will truly affect them. I'm personally happy it redlined and am grabbing a bag of popcorn for the fallout.
 
As I said many many months ago, I see a day coming where it is by week, not year. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to one day watch a game where a player goes in at half time and changes uniforms and plays the second half for the other team.
 
Skydog said:
well according to this if the semester splits the season then someone could in theory play a week 12 game at GT then play for BAMA in playoff.

then in theory you could have one or more players that enter portal after week 12 and the 4 playoff teams in NIL bidding wars.
Click to expand...
The "windows" should take care of anything like that happening. Still don't like it though.
 
I don't see this as having much of an impact compared to the first free transfer.

I have no doubt some will do it, but the number of players who are going to want to play at three different schools during their four years in college will be far lower than the number who will want to play at two.

The one time free transfer time changed everything. After that, allowing additional transfers is a small thing.
 
andrew said:
I don't see this as having much of an impact compared to the first free transfer.

I have no doubt some will do it, but the number of players who are going to want to play at three different schools during their four years in college will be far lower than the number who will want to play at two.

The one time free transfer time changed everything. After that, allowing additional transfers is a small thing.
Click to expand...

Its the immediate eligibility that makes this noteworthy.

Auburn’s starting QB goes down with an ACL and your first call is to your starter to up his NIL and beg him to stay.

You’re 5-1 and playing your rival for control of the division, but you’re star DT had a monster first half of the season and is sitting out while he waits for a bigger program to call. Doesn’t want to risk an injury before his payday.

You somehow made it to the playoff against OSU. But now you have to play against your own all-American MLB because you pissed him off one time and they offered him $1M for one game.
 
Hate to go there, and I’ll leave politics out of it as a business owner, employer, and voter….

But at this point, college football and Georgia Tech would be FAR better off if a collective bargaining agreement came sooner rather than later. Regulate the rules again so everyone is on an even playing field, per se.
 
gtrower said:
Its the immediate eligibility that makes this noteworthy.

Auburn’s starting QB goes down with an ACL and your first call is to your starter to up his NIL and beg him to stay.

You’re 5-1 and playing your rival for control of the division, but you’re star DT had a monster first half of the season and is sitting out while he waits for a bigger program to call. Doesn’t want to risk an injury before his payday.

You somehow made it to the playoff against OSU. But now you have to play against your own all-American MLB because you pissed him off one time and they offered him $1M for one game.
Click to expand...

The immediately eligibility isn't changing as a result of this. Athletes were already immediately eligible to play after transferring the first time. What's changing is this scenario:

Athlete wants to transfer within the transfer window. He is free to do so and eligible to play immediately.
Athlete wants to transfer a second (or third) time within the transfer window. He now has to sit out a year.

This will make it so that the athlete doesn't have to sit out a year after transferring the second time. However, he still has to transfer within the transfer window, which will presumably continue to be during the offseason.

If they were to change the rule to get rid of the transfer window so that midseason transfers were a possibility as in your example, that would definitely be a huge deal. But they're not doing that (at least not yet...)
 
andrew said:
The immediately eligibility isn't changing as a result of this. Athletes were already immediately eligible to play after transferring the first time. What's changing is this scenario:

Athlete wants to transfer within the transfer window. He is free to do so and eligible to play immediately.
Athlete wants to transfer a second (or third) time within the transfer window. He now has to sit out a year.

This will make it so that the athlete doesn't have to sit out a year after transferring the second time. However, he still has to transfer within the transfer window, which will presumably continue to be during the offseason.

If they were to change the rule to get rid of the transfer window so that midseason transfers were a possibility as in your example, that would definitely be a huge deal. But they're not doing that (at least not yet...)
Click to expand...
Can they still transfer again in a later window after playing without the one year penalty is the concern. Right now they can only transfer to one team period without sitting as far as I know. I don't think anyone cares if they transfer multiple times before the ball is snapped.
 
gtchief said:
Can they still transfer, in subsequent windows, without the one year penalty is the concern. Right now they can only transfer to one team period without sitting as far as I know. I don't think anyone cares if they transfer multiple times before the ball is snapped.
Click to expand...

Yes, definitely they will be able to do that. That is what is changing here. But I don't see how that leads to what you said:

You somehow made it to the playoff against OSU. But now you have to play against your own all-American MLB because you pissed him off one time and they offered him $1M for one game.
Click to expand...

There's no scenario under which OSU could offer him $1M for one game, or you could piss your star player off and he could just decide to sit and transfer midseason.

You could piss your star player off and he could decide to sit and then transfer during the offseason. But he can already do that, as long as he hasn't transferred before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top