Portal need to be change to one year only
Moderators: kerrigjl, BrentVU, jfgogold, NateSY, KarenYates, Vandyman74, roanoke, VandyWhit
-
- Lieutenant
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:56 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 3 times
-
- Ensign
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2020 8:33 am
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: Portal need to be change to one year only
I agree 100%, a bad idea that has really hurt college ball.
- mathguy
- Rear Admiral
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 1:27 pm
- Has thanked: 44 times
- Been thanked: 31 times
Re: Portal need to be change to one year only
Honestly, I always really liked the rule that players had to sit out a year after transferring.
For a D1 athlete, picking a school is a big decision. For *any* student, choosing to transfer is a big decision.
The sitting out a rule year encouraged these students to take both of these decisions very seriously, while preserving their right to 4 years of eligibility.
Removing that makes transferring too easy.
For a D1 athlete, picking a school is a big decision. For *any* student, choosing to transfer is a big decision.
The sitting out a rule year encouraged these students to take both of these decisions very seriously, while preserving their right to 4 years of eligibility.
Removing that makes transferring too easy.
-
- Vice Admiral
- Posts: 2620
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:37 pm
- Been thanked: 12 times
Re: Portal need to be change to one year only
Whether we like it or not, the transfer rule is here to stay, perhaps with some modifications. There is some NCAA discussion about one free transfer, then if there is a second transfer the player sits out for a year. But, and this is a big but, there could be exceptions.
In my view the previous rule collapsed for, among other reasons, the exceptions swallowed the rule. Everything became an exception.
The players argued that the coaches can readily transfer without penalty. They claimed that they should also have that same right. Players and activists started swaying public opinion in favor of the players through a well orchestrated public relations campaign.
The Power-5 schools and the NCAA resisted until it was too late. The same thing happened to a greater degree in NIL. There, courts and legislatures became involved. I think California early on passed a law giving players NIL rights. Other states started to follow in part to avoid competitive disadvantage for their state schools. US Congress started sticking its nose in the tent. I may be wrong, but I think the US Supreme Court also granted rights to players.
I too dislike the combination of open transfer plus NIL. However, it is up to the top schools and the NCAA to put reasonable limits on them not in conflict with state laws and court cases. But we will never go back to the previous system (the good old days).
In my view the previous rule collapsed for, among other reasons, the exceptions swallowed the rule. Everything became an exception.
The players argued that the coaches can readily transfer without penalty. They claimed that they should also have that same right. Players and activists started swaying public opinion in favor of the players through a well orchestrated public relations campaign.
The Power-5 schools and the NCAA resisted until it was too late. The same thing happened to a greater degree in NIL. There, courts and legislatures became involved. I think California early on passed a law giving players NIL rights. Other states started to follow in part to avoid competitive disadvantage for their state schools. US Congress started sticking its nose in the tent. I may be wrong, but I think the US Supreme Court also granted rights to players.
I too dislike the combination of open transfer plus NIL. However, it is up to the top schools and the NCAA to put reasonable limits on them not in conflict with state laws and court cases. But we will never go back to the previous system (the good old days).
- AuricGoldfinger
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 16329
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:29 pm
- Has thanked: 88 times
- Been thanked: 223 times
- Contact:
Re: Portal need to be change to one year only
As LawOfTheWest points out above, we're never going back. The toothpaste is out of the tube. And I think this is best for student-athletes.
But the one change I would have advocated for is that a player would still have to sit out a year if they wanted to transfer after their freshman year on campus (unless there was a coaching change). I know that seems reactionary based on what's occurred here the last two seasons, but freshman year can be tough for student and student-athletes alike. No, it's probably not fair, but it would give players something to think about before leaving.
But the one change I would have advocated for is that a player would still have to sit out a year if they wanted to transfer after their freshman year on campus (unless there was a coaching change). I know that seems reactionary based on what's occurred here the last two seasons, but freshman year can be tough for student and student-athletes alike. No, it's probably not fair, but it would give players something to think about before leaving.
-
- Rear Admiral
- Posts: 2146
- Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 1:26 am
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 10 times
Re: Portal need to be change to one year only
That should be the end of sentiment IMHO. It should be 100% about the student-athlete with the fans and businesses as an afterthought but alas we live in a land of opportunity. These young athletes are easy prey for the schools, alumni, businesses and anyone with a dime to exploit. The portal rule won't be updated because it's the right thing to do for these student-athletes. The business model is changing so entities other than the schools, shoe companies and agents are involved now. Let's face it, this is a professional league now with schools rather than cities on the jerseys so the sooner we accept that, the sooner we accept these portal rules.AuricGoldfinger wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:38 am As LawOfTheWest points out above, we're never going back. The toothpaste is out of the tube. And I think this is best for student-athletes.
-
- Vice Admiral
- Posts: 2513
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:08 am
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 25 times
Re: Portal need to be change to one year only
Next year will be the last year of the “CovidClass” and going forward we will see far fewer grad transfers, which has benefited us more so than undergrad transfers. Of course, we will also see fewer players that bounce from school to school and will, most likely, never graduate, but will have played for 5 or sometimes 6 years! I have a difficult time understanding all the current transfer rules, as I have seen players who have played for 4 schools???