re: Brandon Kennedy transferring

Rules are what they are. Everyone needs to live with them and move on. We live in such a cry baby culture. Why would you want to go to a chief rival of a team you’ve bled with for years anyway? Seems sort of petty when there are 100+ other options out there. I say no. Hell no.

I'm hoping UA's transfer release restrictions will stand this time. They should, imo. This doesn't pass the smell test. Imo, it reeks of UT and AU tampering with a UA player. Kennedy is already taking grad classes at UA. This isn't about any necessity to transfer to UT or AU to further his education. He can do that at UA or other non-restricted schools. It's about UT and AU both trying to poach a valuable Bama player by promising him he'll be their starting center.

Bingo! We shouldn't reward our former coaches for recruiting player from our roster!

There are plenty of other schools for him to go to...no need to go to any school on our schedule in the coming year.

If they want to play immediately, go to a school not on the schedule. If they want to go to a school on the schedule, sit for a year.

quote:

---

I would assume you restrict contact with The Citadel because its easier to make a blanket restriction to all non-conference opponents

---

Yes, this makes sense to me. You restrict transfers to any conference team (to avoid poaching), and to any non-conference team we have scheduled.

That's not draconian in the least. If you put no restrictions on it, there would be all sorts of underhanded stuff going on constantly.

It's not just a talent drain; the offensive and defensive playbooks are intellectual property. Players transferring -- especially after spring practice -- have intimate knowledge of the playbook. Even if they didn't play for another team (despite what might have been promised them), they can provide valuable information to the coaching staff.

quote:

---

Once a kid graduates I think they've earned the right to spend that last year wherever they want to go.

---

Why?

quote:

---

Why?

---

I think they've fulfilled their obligation to receive the benefits they got and earned the right to move on if they so please without penalty for a final year.

I understand not allowing them to go to an opponent in that next year for all the reasons mentioned by others above. I think that is reasonable as well.

quote:

---

Sounds like that's the way it is now

---

Yea, it is, and I don't have a huge issue with it. Personally, I'd probably let the kid go where he wants. I'd be pretty disappointed if he chose Auburn or Tennessee, but other than that I'd wish him well.

quote:

---

Yea, it is, and I don't have a huge issue with it. Personally, I'd probably let the kid go where he wants. I'd be pretty disappointed if he chose Auburn or Tennessee, but other than that I'd wish him well.

---

Ideally you hope it works out the best for everyone involved. And there are literally over 100 different FBS schools he could choose form, or like over 45 P5 schools that he can go too.

I just disagree with the idea that they've earned something by getting a degree. It sounds to me like the school has upheld it's side of the deal, has supported and done what is needed to get them a degree as promised. And the schools fulfillment of the deal somehow means the player has earned the right to disregard the remainder of their side of the deal.

Seems backwards to me in the thinking, but it seems to be the way people think about it(I did at first until I thought about it more).

I get that it's a big accomplishment for the kid to graduate that early and all that, but I don't get why it's supposed to be rewarded at the expense of the school and program that made it happen.

Nor do I really see any kids being done wrong.

I'm pretty sure the NCAA requires that schools' NLI agreements obligate the school to provide a scholarship for a minimumum of 4 years, and maybe even a 5th year too if they're redshirted.

The school spends one of their 25 annual Initial Counter spots and 85 total scholarship spots to get a 4-5 year player, and then invests extensively in educating, supporting and developing them.

The SEC has a policy against student athletes transfering to other schools within the conference. It's also my understanding that schools' typically include their standard transfer release restrictions in their NLI agreements, meaning the student athletes have already agreed to those on day one.

The SEC policy also provides that a student athlete may appeal to the SEC to override transfer release restriction(s) that a school is unwilling to waive.

The purpose of the restrictions is to protect the school (and its other members) against the adverse impact of players transfering to schools that compete directly against them in their conference or on their schedule. A student athlete getting an undergrad degree early does not invalidate the transfer release restrictions that were agreed to in the NLI.

What I've described is pretty standard across FBS conferences and schools.

NCAA Bylaws (rules) contain a grad transfer provision that allows for a transfer release restriction to be overridden if the school does not offer the grad degree that the student desires to pursue.

It's my understanding that Kennedy got his undergrad degree in 3 years, redshirted his freshman year and also got a medical redshirt for 2017, and thus has 3 years of eligibilty remaining.

He's also already taken grad courses at UA, so it's apparently not a case of him needing to transfer to UT or AU in order to pursue a grad degree UA doesn't offer.

Instead, it smells like a case of tampering by UT and/or AU with a valuable UA player, enticing him to transfer by promising him he'll be their starting center for the 2018 season.

Reportedly, Kennedy wants to transfer to UT. Kennedy has appealed to have the restriction overridden by the SEC. UT is of course hoping media and public sentiment will win the day like it did with Mo Smith leaving UA for UGA.

One thing that worked in Smith's favor was that UGA and UA were not scheduled to play each other. That's not the case with Kennedy seeking to go to UT.

There's a significant number of players who get their undergrad degrees in three years. If the SEC overrides the restriction and allows Kennedy to transfer (after only being at UA for 3 years) to UT, simply because he got his undergrad degree early, they're setting a dangerous precedent.

quote:

---

There's a significant number of players who get their undergrad degrees in three years. If the SEC overrides the restriction and allows Kennedy to transfer to UT, simply because he has his undergrad degree, they're setting a dangerous precedent.

---

I disagree with this. The link below talks about the misconception of changing the transfer rules and how it will impact college football. I can agree that the number of grad transfers is growing fast but there is a bubble coming.


LINK

There was only 117 grad transfers in 2016 and although it is a huge jump from 2011 that growth it is unlikely to sustain itself. I would like to see the current numbers for qualifying for graduate transfer in 3 or 3 1/2 years. I'm not sure how many on the football team do, but it would have to be significantly above the general population under 4 year graduation rate to be significant.

With that being said most grads choose to go back to the same school for a grad degree, go to another P5 conference or go Group of 6/Division II/III. I doubt you are going to see and influx of grads jumping to conference rivals.

As far as the contract piece goes it looks as though everyone is fullfilling the contract, Alabama blocked his options and he can appeal if he so chooses.
No big deal, but I think the SEC should change the restrictions. I think the impact it has on schools is greatly exagerrated and it is better for the students.