Jump to content

Hongbit

2020 College Football Thread

Recommended Posts


This would be the biggest game changer to hit college sports in decades. Immediate eligibility with no questions asked for all players.  I like the idea but think it would be better to start in 2021.   Its going to have an immediate impact on most teams right away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hongbit said:

This would be the biggest game changer to hit college sports in decades. Immediate eligibility with no questions asked for all players.  I like the idea but think it would be better to start in 2021.   Its going to have an immediate impact on most teams right away. 

I don't have that much of an opinion on the wisdom, but I'm curious about the why. What is it the NCAA feel it needs to accomplish here or what pressure are they responding to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Deleterious said:

They're going to try whatever they can to get a season in.  Because without college football, there isn't much revenue for athletic departments to keep other sports around.

University of Cincinnati drops men's soccer in virus fallout

Quote

College are grappling with revenue losses from spring sports cancellations, including the lucrative NCAA basketball tournament. Eliminating sports is considered a last resort by athletic directors who face difficult choices.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2020 at 10:23 AM, Gehringer_2 said:

I don't have that much of an opinion on the wisdom, but I'm curious about the why. What is it the NCAA feel it needs to accomplish here or what pressure are they responding to?

The NCAA is a widely and deservedly despised organization, and many of its absurd rules not only do not accomplish anything good but work against student-athletes far more than they do against badly-behaved coaches and programs.  Otherwise, how would people like John Calipari and Bob Huggins have jobs in which public universities pay them millions of dollars?  And the way the creeps in the NCAA perceive and treat their "livestock" has finally started to become enough of a PR problem for the creeps to respond to it in at least some small ways.   

If a teenaged kid decides to go to a particular school, and then finds out that he or she made a mistake, the kid should not be penalized or have to get past bureaucratic  barriers to go somewhere that suits (and perhaps treats) him or her better. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, six-hopper said:

The NCAA is a widely and deservedly despised organization, and many of its absurd rules not only do not accomplish anything good but work against student-athletes far more than they do against badly-behaved coaches and programs.  Otherwise, how would people like John Calipari and Bob Huggins have jobs in which public universities pay them millions of dollars?  And the way the creeps in the NCAA perceive and treat their "livestock" has finally started to become enough of a PR problem for the creeps to respond to it in at least some small ways.   

If a teenaged kid decides to go to a particular school, and then finds out that he or she made a mistake, the kid should not be penalized or have to get past bureaucratic  barriers to go somewhere that suits (and perhaps treats) him or her better. 

 

I understand why the current transfer system sucks, I'm more curious as to what would be behind a "one-time" waiver.  If you are going fix the rule, fix it, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a situation where if you can’t properly enforce a rule then the best course of action may be to remove the rule entirely.

The NCAA has been very inconsistent on how it determines transfer waivers.   Nobody has really been able to figure out why one guy gets a free transfer while another in a similar situation is denied and must sit out a year.   It’s also been a very bad look when millionaire head coaches and assistants can move whenever they want but the players are bound by their LOI and are stuck.    This rule would eliminate the need for any of these situations.    Players get one free transfer and if they want to transfer again later for any reason then they must sit out of for a year.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hongbit said:

This is a situation where if you can’t properly enforce a rule then the best course of action may be to remove the rule entirely.

The NCAA has been very inconsistent on how it determines transfer waivers.   Nobody has really been able to figure out why one guy gets a free transfer while another in a similar situation is denied and must sit out a year.   It’s also been a very bad look when millionaire head coaches and assistants can move whenever they want but the players are bound by their LOI and are stuck.    This rule would eliminate the need for any of these situations.    Players get one free transfer and if they want to transfer again later for any reason then they must sit out of for a year.   

LOL - one thing is for sure, if they grant one free transfer the coaches are all going to wish they had a blanket freshman ineligibility rule back. How many more high level recruits are going to be out the door if they don't win playing time as freshmen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough toenails.

I have little sympathy for these programs.  Several say whatever needs to be said to get as many top recruits as possible, knowing full well they all can't get significant playing time as a freshman.

I also sort of feel like, were I a coach, any player that would leave if he can't beat out an upperclassman ahead of him is someone I don't mind leaving.  I'd certainly have an open conversation and explain where I saw the player fitting in over time, but in general the better player is going to play, and often times a 21 or 22 year old is better than an 18/19 year old.

I add the in general bit because there may be disciplinary issues or some other extenuating circumstance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Tough toenails.

I have little sympathy for these programs.  Several say whatever needs to be said to get as many top recruits as possible, knowing full well they all can't get significant playing time as a freshman.

I also sort of feel like, were I a coach, any player that would leave if he can't beat out an upperclassman ahead of him is someone I don't mind leaving.  I'd certainly have an open conversation and explain where I saw the player fitting in over time, but in general the better player is going to play, and often times a 21 or 22 year old is better than an 18/19 year old.

I add the in general bit because there may be disciplinary issues or some other extenuating circumstance.

I will be curious to see what will happen if they loosen the rule in any major way. I don't  have any sense of whether it will end up being a nothing burger where transfer numbers don't change by a whole lot, or it turns into a crazy free for  all and a whole secondary recruiting frenzy. And I suppose that is where some serious downside risk is. Can you stop or enforce teams not 'poaching' each other's programs in an era when every coach and athlete has access to untraceable messaging apps? It seems that could get really nasty if it started to happen in any large way. The acrimony and accusation level about it is high enough today even with the limited amount of xfering going on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible to know exactly, but I think the vast majority that would leave are:

a. blocked from getting playing time with little chance in the future,

b. have fundamental differences with the coaches / program, or

c. unexpectedly improved a lot and would benefit moving up from say a mid major to a major program.

Yeah, there will be guys who flake out because they are flakes.  But I am not too concerned over that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Hongbit said:

This is a situation where if you can’t properly enforce a rule then the best course of action may be to remove the rule entirely.

The NCAA has been very inconsistent on how it determines transfer waivers.   Nobody has really been able to figure out why one guy gets a free transfer while another in a similar situation is denied and must sit out a year.   It’s also been a very bad look when millionaire head coaches and assistants can move whenever they want but the players are bound by their LOI and are stuck.    This rule would eliminate the need for any of these situations.    Players get one free transfer and if they want to transfer again later for any reason then they must sit out of for a year.   

if they determined that your school had enough political clout, you could get a transfer waiver for whatever reason you wanted (like ohio state needing a qb).  if they didnt, they suddenly stood firm (like cincinnati needing a defensive tackle).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Tough toenails.

I have little sympathy for these programs.  Several say whatever needs to be said to get as many top recruits as possible, knowing full well they all can't get significant playing time as a freshman.

I also sort of feel like, were I a coach, any player that would leave if he can't beat out an upperclassman ahead of him is someone I don't mind leaving.  I'd certainly have an open conversation and explain where I saw the player fitting in over time, but in general the better player is going to play, and often times a 21 or 22 year old is better than an 18/19 year old.

I add the in general bit because there may be disciplinary issues or some other extenuating circumstance.

Yeah, I don’t see this as an issue. From a practical perspective, allowing the kids that weren’t as good to just leave isn’t a bad thing. Sometimes you just don’t know who is going to end up being better until you see them for a year. I think most kids have a good idea where they stack up relative to their peers. If it isn’t likely to happen, probably best to move on whenever that becomes apparent. 
 

There will inherently be examples of the kid that got away and became a star, but so be it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gehringer_2 said:

I will be curious to see what will happen if they loosen the rule in any major way. I don't  have any sense of whether it will end up being a nothing burger where transfer numbers don't change by a whole lot, or it turns into a crazy free for  all and a whole secondary recruiting frenzy. And I suppose that is where some serious downside risk is. Can you stop or enforce teams not 'poaching' each other's programs in an era when every coach and athlete has access to untraceable messaging apps? It seems that could get really nasty if it started to happen in any large way. The acrimony and accusation level about it is high enough today even with the limited amount of xfering going on. 

It’s going to have a massive impact on recruiting in both football and basketball.  It’s probably going to make a lot more work for these coaches too.   They will need to stay recruiting these guys all the way through the process.  You obviously want to get their LOI,  but if you don’t it’s now important to finish 2nd and be that backup option.   All campus visits are going to be important and coaches that may have not pushed to get a long shot prospect on campus for a visit a will want to do that more than ever.   Tampering is going to happen but I can’t imagine there will be much effort to try and enforce.   The reality is the kids would have the power they didn’t before and can make a switch for any reasons.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

It’s going to have a massive impact on recruiting in both football and basketball.  It’s probably going to make a lot more work for these coaches too.   They will need to stay recruiting these guys all the way through the process.  You obviously want to get their LOI,  but if you don’t it’s now important to finish 2nd and be that backup option.   All campus visits are going to be important and coaches that may have not pushed to get a long shot prospect on campus for a visit a will want to do that more than ever.   Tampering is going to happen but I can’t imagine there will be much effort to try and enforce.   The reality is the kids would have the power they didn’t before and can make a switch for any reasons.    

I guess it depends on the fine print. Are we talking one transfer at any point in eligibility or only after the 1st yr? If it's the former, my guess is the biggest effect will be for the rich to get richer. Say a 3 star OT goes to Indiana, grows 2". puts on 50lb and just dominates, while Indiana's record sits barely at bowl eligibility. Meanwhile,  before the Indy player's third season of eligibility, LSU's starting RG blows his knee. Great opportunity for that Indy athlete - perfect fix for LSU; sucks for Indiana!

IOW, unless it's held to the 1st yr, and maybe even if it is, I'm wondering how this rule change would not immediately result in a bonanza for the best teams being able to back fill injury losses with ready made upperclassmen. I suppose the limit would be that they have to have the tender available, but that seems like a pretty soft limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only fine print is the athlete must be in good academic standing.  Should this pass as expected,  all athletes will have the option to transfer once without penalty at any point during their eligibility.   
 

This will definitely help the rich get richer.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hongbit said:

The only fine print is the athlete must be in good academic standing.  Should this pass as expected,  all athletes will have the option to transfer once without penalty at any point during their eligibility.   
 

This will definitely help the rich get richer.   

Of course, on second thought, there may be silver lining for non-top 25 schools. Lets take our 3 star. He has a tender from PowerhouseU but he sees a lot of depth ahead of him. But he really wants the chance to play at BCS level. If he knows he can xfer, maybe he is more likely to take the offer from State College in hopes he can excel to the point of being noticed by a PowerHouseU when he's an upperclassman. (This would just be the athletic equivalent of what I already see a lot of students going on the academic end, which is polishing their credentials (and saving some money) going to a local college and then transferring to a top school as an upper-classman to get the more coveted diploma.)

I guess I still think the 1st scenario if the more obvious and likely (i.e. that it is a bonanza for the powerhouses). But who knows? I guess the NCAA could do some serious surveying to see if they could get a gauge on player/parent attitudes about the various options. Doubt they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s going to make it very hard for teams to plan their future starting QB roadmap.   It’s going to be a year by year thing for almost everyone and will change the face of the traditional QB competition in spring and fall camp.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A small thing, but if this helps drive unrepentant ***holes from the coaching ranks, then that is a positive as well.

I think those type of coaches are going away anyway, but if this hastens that, then good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

A small thing, but if this helps drive unrepentant ***holes from the coaching ranks, then that is a positive as well.

I think those type of coaches are going away anyway, but if this hastens that, then good.

I hope you are right. I would be disappointing if it turns out to give the most slimy and devious ones another angle to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slimy and devious are one thing, treating players like **** and making their life **** because, in part, they think the player has no practical recourse is another.

I don't know, I have nothing good to say about dictatorial passive aggressive ***hats, and the idea it is ok for coaches to be dictatorial ***hats -> treat athletes, at any age, poorly because *sports* and 'makes them tough' is just fundamentally wrong in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not shocked a business that doesn't pay its help can survive these lean times.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...