Sims + Clayton

At some point in time some schools will tell the ncaa to pound sand. It is the mob plain and simple.
 
gtrower said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Diseqc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
upload_2019-8-20_12-47-29.jpeg


Not
You
Tech
 
Diseqc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 shit show, IMO.
 
Helluva Entrepreneur said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Helluva Entrepreneur said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Diseqc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Helluva Entrepreneur said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
smokey_wasp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Helluva Entrepreneur said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Diseqc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Helluva Entrepreneur said:
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.
Click to expand...

Keep them happy, then. 404TheCulture
 
Diseqc said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Helluva Entrepreneur said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's illegal to recruit a kid from another team. There's already rules in place to stop the poaching.
 
This shit 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top