re: Alabama not allowing Brandon Kennedy to transfer to Auburn or Tennessee

I wonder if the people who are opposed to complete open transfers would be ok with it if the player just weren't allowed to play against the team they transferred from. They do that in soccer when teams send players who aren't playing on loan to others teams so they can get playing time. They can stipulate if the 2 teams play the player on loan can't participate. If you added that rule plus stated the student had to make a decision on an in-conference transfer prior to spring practice I don't see why any one would be opposed to that.


I am still not sure what we are protecting against though. I get that some people don't want to compete against a player who played for Bama the previous year to "protect" the school but outside of that I just don't get it. Less than .5% of football players grad transfer. Most are moving down or in some cases up in competition not transferring in conference. Most options are limited regardless because of scholarship numbers and need at their positions. The numbers and circumstances for in-confernce grad transfers would likely be 5-10 for each conference at most in a busy year. The Pac-12 has had 5 in-conference grad transfers this year and it doesn't seem like the conference is falling apart.

I also don't believe you should limit student options because you can't trust coaches not to tamper. Make it prohibitive for coaches to cheat not for students to go to the school of their choice.

I still think we have created a rule searching for a problem.

ETA: By the way, if this rule is eliminated, which it likely will be in the near, it is probably going to help Bama more often than other teams.

Also I doubt there will be much outcry when it is.

I just really hope that Brandon Kennedy quits football and starts posting on the Bama Board. We really need someone else to help discuss Jalen v Tua and why Jalen sucks.

As a board, we are really short on folks who bring that topic up.

quote:

---

It's a completely different thing when he has graduated.

---

When a kid signs a scholarship to play football, each party is trading a thing. The kid is trading his services on the gridiron and the university is trading a free education. And that's the crux of the argument.

They are NOT trading a free degree. It's a free education.

the exchange is not fulfilled. As long as he's eligible, it's still up to the University of Alabama as far as his football career goes.

Ie, he can go to Tennessee or Auburn but cannot play football.

It is in exchange for 4 years of eligibility/scholarship/education, whatever we want to call it, but not necessarily with the same school. If it was the case you were bound by the school no grad transfers would be allowed without permission. I disagree that the expectation is 4 years for 1 school anymore with the way the draft and grad transfers are currently setup. If it is, it shouldn't be anymore times have changed. I don't disagree any with the current stipulations however pertaining to Kennedy and he is bound to them. He is allowed to grad transfer based on the stipulations you mentioned and Saban should "protect the program" as he sees fit within the rules. I just feel that the arguments against allowing grads to transfer freely is overblown and the 4 year obligation argument is shakey at best.

Are you saying that he is exchanging his services on the football field for athletics?

I'm not sure how much different that is than eligibility.

While I'm sure we would all appreciate something that is "almost" a compliment (Carlton your ability in this class is not as inept as I thought it would be, is almost a compliment) I think the ability to grad transfer without restriction is much more appreciated.

Now don't get me wrong, I know you are going back and forth with several people with slightly different views and reasons for these views. I believe that under the current rules if you are blocked from certain schools for whatever reason you should abide by them and appeal within the rules. I just believe the reasoning that most people provide beyond, "After you sign with us we should have a say in your grad transfer destination if we feel it may negatively impact us for practically any reason," is nonsense (other arguments include free agency, 120 other options, tampering, contract obligation, etc.). I believe it is overblown and the rules should (have mostly already) changed. The PAC-12 has had 5 in conference grad transfers this year and nobody cares. Once we get a situation where we benefit from it no one will care. When this rule does change, very few people are going to really care. We are upset now because it could hurt later (he was likely transfering regardless). People will only be upset later if our center get hurt.

98% of why people want to block this is because this might hurt Bama, all this stuff about 4 year agreements, integrity of the game, free agency is just window dressing.

I however also believe if you think about most things for a little bit you can come to a better solution.

Would any of you be opposed to open transfers if the players was just strictly prohibited from competing against the team he transferred from and setting a pre-spring practice deadline for in-conference transfer decisions? Seems like that allows everyone to get what they want and would really make the new school and student evaluate if it is good fit. I'm sure Auburn would love to have Kennedy, but if they lose their starting center for the iron bowl is it worth it? The student still gets the education opportunity and to showcase their talents where they would like and would only miss 2 games at most. The first school doesn't compete against the player they "have a contract with." The other school has to decide whether they want a player who might possibly not be a full participant in a critical situation.

quote:

---

his transfer wouldn't be about education at all...

---

Right. Anybody that thinks this is really about an education is very gullible.

quote:

---

I can't answer for everybody else, but as for myself(and I suspect the conference heads), I'm very concerned about opening the door to basically a free agency situation in college football. I don't want to hear folks say,"a little rule change like this won't be a big deal" because that's bullshite. Once that door gets cracked, there's no holding it back. Eventually players will be trying to move around at will. So many of the problems in this world today were started with that same mentality. 
There's nothing wrong with non-compete clauses in the business world, as there isn't with college athletics.

---

I just have to disagree with this. This is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because you change one rule, does not mean you need to change another. Just because a student tries to transfer under a different circumstance does not mean that you have to allow them. Changing the rule does not mean you have to change the year sit out for non-graduates. The graduate transfer population is currently less than half a percent for football and the likelyhood of it ever reaching even 3 percent is highly improbable.

Yes non-compete contracts can be reasonable, but from my experience with those contracts the higher ups in companies, generally people with money get out of them and move about freely.

Generally it is people lower down the totem pole who have limited institutional/intellectual company knowledge who get stuck with non-competes limiting, thier professional and financial options and sometimes tieing them to a company when they could have a better opportunity. I am happy to say I have been able to beat a couple of non-competes and my previous organizations are doing just fine.

By the way the door is already open for grad "free agency" Most schools allow grads to transfer to most schools, Pac-12 doesn't seem to have much concern with in conference transfer. There has already been one in the SEC this year. This rule only has a few more years of life anyway. And as I said before after it happens it will all be fine and no one will care.

Nobody likes the no competing against your previous team rule? Seems like a way better option than the rule that is going to eventually be elimated anyway. Imagine a grad transfer QB having to sit out against his old team in the playoffs. It would be hilarious.

Couple of things than I am getting fatigued with the subject

Just because it works for the Pac12 doesn't necessarily mean its a good idea for the hyper competitive, football crazed SEC. That is why its a league rule not an NCAA rule. It would note the Big10 has the same rule.

Also, because its a small percentage now doesn't mean that won't change. Significantly. It's also not a good deal for the "haves" like Alabama. This is third situation we have had now. We aren't likely taking Tennessee's 2nd or 3rd string player but they will go after ours.

The purpose and intent of this rule was never about athletics. It was about academics and allowing a player to further his graduate studies and paying for it will his football eligibility. It wasn't supposed to be about playing time.

The rule as it is written now doesn't put any undue burden on the athlete as there are 120 Div 1 programs out there. In conference transfers aren't prohibited unless the coach feels like it is a competitive situation: which it is in this case and with Smith. We did allow a kid to go to Mizzou.

The Smith transfer absolutely hurt us and it is a cause for concern regarding depth if Kennedy leaves us. It absolutely impacts us adversely. The argument he is going to leave anyway? That is true but I see know reason why that should benefit a direct competitor since its about playing time and not school.

Despite the low transfer numbers now, doesn't mean that won't change. Further, I think this will encourage tampering. It was established that Smart and Tucker were having back channel communications with the Mom. I am convinced UT and AU tampered here. This will only encourage more of this: Think Cecil Newton types running around. It will cause all kinds of problems.

Lastly, when a kid commits, his athletic eligibility commits: period end of story. So if he decides to leave, there are rules around that....but to say he has or should have complete free will about the matter is ridiculous.

People say stop treating them as pros: This is nothing near a professional arrangement. If it were, this kid would be locked down and be unable to do anything. You can't decide to leave the NFC East and go to the AFL West because its not to your liking. If he decided not to play for us that would be a breach of contract and we could sue or claw back money. Just because he completed his degree doesn't mean anything. We gave him that opportunity... he doesn't owe it to us to complete it and his graduation doesn't mean that his athletic ability still isn't tied to the university. He gives his athletic eligibility in consideration for the opportunity to go to the school.

Free agency is a relatively new concept in the NFL (last 20 years or so) and it took two strikes/work stoppages to get it. Further, there are terms and conditions to be met to become a free agent and that entails playing out your first contract. We are trying to keep this concept out of college but transfers are allowed with certain conditions. You don't become a free agent in the NFL without meeting certain terms and conditions because it would be chaos.