NCAA rule changes
- Thread starter FlabLoser
- Start date
Indifferent on #1, definitely do not want to see #3.<div>
</div><div>Only reason I can see #2 being ok is that there are a lot of athletes that transfer for legitimate reasons that need to sit out. But that also means you will see a lot of athletes transferring without penalty just because they feel like it. Kind of a slippery slope.</div>
</div><div>Only reason I can see #2 being ok is that there are a lot of athletes that transfer for legitimate reasons that need to sit out. But that also means you will see a lot of athletes transferring without penalty just because they feel like it. Kind of a slippery slope.</div>
Elimination of athletic dorms was the reason for the discipline problems we have today. Get them all together so the coaches can have control over when they come and go and what they do. And they should be required to live there ... off campus living should not be an option. They can "merge into the student body" in the class room.<div>
</div><div>Kind of neutral on #1, opposed big time to #3.</div><div>
</div><div>However, coaches should be allowed to comment on lousy officiating.
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
</div><div>Kind of neutral on #1, opposed big time to #3.</div><div>
</div><div>However, coaches should be allowed to comment on lousy officiating.
</div><div></div><div>
</div>
Goat Grindin said:
How is eliminating the need to sit out a year ridiculous?
Maybe if it was completely eliminated, but for many instances, it makes sense.
Family reasons- makes sense. Though if the family reason is very serious, maybe the kid should sit out anyways since being close to home doesn't mean much when you are practicing every day, in school, working out, and traveling for games.
Coaching change- makes sense. Don't be naive and think a player signs for the school. That may be part of it, but they signed with the coach(es). A new coach means a new scheme and approach. If the current player(s) doesn't fit, then why force them to either stay or sit out?
Already redshirted- makes total sense. Most redshirts are players who aren't good enough to crack the rotation and need time to get bigger or improve on skills, right? Wouldn't that sort of player also be the most likely to be on the fringe when a coach overwound and needs to make room on the roster? Of course. So a player that listened to the coach and redshirted is then let go and forced to play elsewhere. They then have to sit out a year which loses them 1/4 of their college career, or they must drop down to d2. That's absurd.
A coach forces the player to redshirt. Then they force the player out of the program which forces the player to lose eligibility if they want to stay in D1. And you think changing this rule is ridiculous? Really?
WTF??? There would be mass transfers every friggin' year. You think recrootin' season is full of drama queens? All it would do it prolong it. <div>mstateglfr said:
</div><div>The kids SHOULD choose the school. I know they don't always, no I'm not naive. But that's their dumb *** fault. They are adults, make adult decisions and live with them. And there should be a penalty for them if they make the wrong decision. Maybe they'll think a little harder next time they're faced with a big decision.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>
I already said maybe not in all situations, so toss the mass transfers point out.
It is amazing that someone thinks a player whose scholarship was dropped should have to sit out at another school. They didn't want to leave, yet they are forced to sit out and if they already redshirted, they must then lose eligibility. Even after I've already asked you, I still can't believe typo think that is a just position. I can't believe someone looks at that and thinks, yep that there is a great idea.
When a player didn't even want to leave, why the hell are they having to sit out and maybe lose eligibility elsewhere? That doesn't fit into your rant about players choosing better, and it does fit I to your comment about the player choosing the school.
Say a new coach comes in and doesn't want a player to stay, but the player wants to be on the team since he sighed with the school. Scholarships are year to year so the player is gone, fine. But why make them sit out when it wasnt their choice to leave?
It blows my mind when people want the coaches and schools to have all the power and the student athletes to have not only no say, but get penalized when they want to stay but aren't invited back.
It is amazing that someone thinks a player whose scholarship was dropped should have to sit out at another school. They didn't want to leave, yet they are forced to sit out and if they already redshirted, they must then lose eligibility. Even after I've already asked you, I still can't believe typo think that is a just position. I can't believe someone looks at that and thinks, yep that there is a great idea.
When a player didn't even want to leave, why the hell are they having to sit out and maybe lose eligibility elsewhere? That doesn't fit into your rant about players choosing better, and it does fit I to your comment about the player choosing the school.
Say a new coach comes in and doesn't want a player to stay, but the player wants to be on the team since he sighed with the school. Scholarships are year to year so the player is gone, fine. But why make them sit out when it wasnt their choice to leave?
It blows my mind when people want the coaches and schools to have all the power and the student athletes to have not only no say, but get penalized when they want to stay but aren't invited back.
1. Require schools to let a player know by May 1 if his scholarship is being renewed. If not, he can transfer without sitting out. If he transfers with a release from the school, he doesn't have to sit out. Otherwise, he has to sit a year.
2. Sounds like a good idea, but this would give a huge advantage to the big money schools. Their athletic dorms would be palaces.
3. Terrible idea.
2. Sounds like a good idea, but this would give a huge advantage to the big money schools. Their athletic dorms would be palaces.
3. Terrible idea.
Require teams to let players know whose scholarship is being renewed by the end of Spring Practice. Any player who isn't being renewed can transfer anywhere without sitting out. Also, let anyone transfer in a coaching change. Ryan Mallet should be the poster boy for this exception.<div>
</div><div>On the flip side, don't allow a player to utilize any loophole if he was kicked off the team for disciplinary reasons, like Jeremiah Masoli.</div>
</div><div>On the flip side, don't allow a player to utilize any loophole if he was kicked off the team for disciplinary reasons, like Jeremiah Masoli.</div>
Removing any incentive to stay at your current school would be disastrous for college athletics. Imagine a scenario in pro sports where all contracts were for one year only, and all compensation was equal no matter who you played for. Every year would be one giant free-for-all, and teams would be gutted.<div>
</div><div>Obviously you're not going to see entire rosters change each year, as most kids who pick a school and are getting an opportunity will stay. But think about the kids who get passed over by the bigger schools and then prove themselves within their first 2-3 years at a smaller school. What's to stop them from just making the move up when the bigger school suddenly wants them?</div>
</div><div>Obviously you're not going to see entire rosters change each year, as most kids who pick a school and are getting an opportunity will stay. But think about the kids who get passed over by the bigger schools and then prove themselves within their first 2-3 years at a smaller school. What's to stop them from just making the move up when the bigger school suddenly wants them?</div>
What the heck is the reason for #3?<div>
</div><div>I hate rule changes simply for the sake of changing something when no one, and I mean no one, is calling for the change. There are several very good reasons for causing coaches to stay quiet on prospective recruits. There's not a single reason for allowing them to comment on them.</div><div>
</div><div>The fact that the NCAA is even considering a change like that is a very bad sign.</div>
</div><div>I hate rule changes simply for the sake of changing something when no one, and I mean no one, is calling for the change. There are several very good reasons for causing coaches to stay quiet on prospective recruits. There's not a single reason for allowing them to comment on them.</div><div>
</div><div>The fact that the NCAA is even considering a change like that is a very bad sign.</div>
I'm sure with a little research you could go back and find out exactly when and why each of those rules originated. And I bet if you did, you would decide that maybe they're not such bad rules after all.
The school that he is leaving has to give the ok for the transferand orthey can only transfer during their first two years. Hell other wise what will happen, Alabama, Florida, LSU and others would just sit back and watch how good some of these guys turn out to be and then get them to transfer their Sophomore, Junior or even their Senior years. Just think where RGIII would have gone. What about Flecher Cox? Hell would he had played for MSU this past season?
Whenever he sets his mind to something (regardless if it's a stupid point or...actually something sensible) there's no budging. I don't know if that's worth commending or an issue since he can't be reasoned with.
I think it's stupid that coaches have to avoid talking specifics about players they are recruiting. I don't think any coach will go out of his way to say something negative about some recruits, but it could cut down on all of these stupid secondary infractions that the NCAA is so anal about. Maybe coaches would abuse it and bring up recruits names at PCs, etc, but I think they should at least try the option.