Started By
Message
re: Mark Richt reacts to instant transfer eligibility proposal
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:45 pm to RD Dawg
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:45 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
They better be focused on the fans and donors eventually because there the ones footing the bill for these guys.Unless you just wanna have the students and the state governments pay for all the multi million dollar facilities, training and the very best coaches.
It would end up being an Ivy League product and probably draw about 20k per game with the games broadcasted on GPTV
Fine. If you're correct this is simply a business with employees combining their efforts to create the best possible product for paying patrons.
If that's really the case eliminate the pretense and allow the market to dictate compensation for all said employees.
1
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:55 pm to chillmonster
quote:
you want your football team to focus on you and not the athletes there's a league for you. It's called the NFL.
Lol
Posted on 2/19/20 at 12:08 am to lostinbr
quote:
lostinbr
Glad someone else gets it. It helps the smaller programs. Big programs aren't poaching kids from smaller programs on the regular and never will because they already have better talent leaving to go to smaller programs.
I personally think it would benefit big programs if done correctly. By correctly, I mean they have to eliminate transfers counting against initial counters or get rid of limits on initial counters. Big programs would just replace the transfers with hs recruits that could possibly contribute. Obviously most of the kids transferring would have been passed up already.
The need for immediate eligibility is only necessary because of the subjectiveness of the waivers currently. Justin Fields and Tate Martell left for no other reason than being #2 on the depth chart. Bru McCoy signed financial paperwork and enrolled at USC only to transfer to Texas.(the transfer back is immaterial to this argument) There was no hardship so why did any of those 3 get a waiver? Why was anyone else turned down? It's all fine until a kid that transfers to your school gets turned down but one of your rivals kid's doesn't.
Can't have the subjectivity involved. Either eliminate waivers or make it a 1 time free for all. The middle does nothing but create controversy.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 6:11 am to ImayGoLesMiles
What a magnificent melt that was les
Posted on 2/19/20 at 6:24 am to FlexDawg
In fairness he thought this was a good idea too, can his judgement be trusted? I'm sure his pants and seat in his car would say no
Posted on 2/19/20 at 6:43 am to lsufanva
quote:
Glad someone else gets it. It helps the smaller programs
Not really.
It actually helps the top 5 national recruiting teams.
Bama already recruits 1 stud safety. They can grab their plan b and say, "in the nfl, you are going to have to beat that man for a job. Come here and show the nfl that you are man enough. If it doesnt work out for 1 of you, then you can be a free agent and no harm/no foul."
Depth charts won't mean as much in recruiting. And the best teams will stack on top even better talent with the casualties taking a free agency stance.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 6:47 am to chillmonster
quote:
Exactly. How about a kid like Alfano? Guy leaves Alabama for Colorado specifically because of his relationship with the coaching staff, redshirts, then the HC jumps ship the following year before he gets to play a down.
Kids should be able to leave 1 time without burning a year, and they should be able to leave after a HC leaves.
I get what you are saying, but does this mean we are ready to completely drop the ruse that this about a college education first and foremost?
Why don't we just classify college football as fundraising and call it a day?
Posted on 2/19/20 at 6:50 am to meansonny
Any all conference player at a non power 5 school will enter the transfer portal. If it doesn't work they will then sit a year after transferring again or graduate and transfer and play immediately. All conference safety at Toledo, transfers to UGA and is buried on the depth chart, finishes at Bowling Green. How many times will something like that happen?
This post was edited on 2/19/20 at 6:57 am
Posted on 2/19/20 at 6:59 am to FlexDawg
The split second the NCAA enforces instant transfer eligibility, I will have watched my last college football game.
Recruiting a player should end after they sign on the line. It's vital to their development that the leverage over their practice habits, their playing time, and their off-the-field behavior swings to the adults in the football program after the players arrive on campus.
This policy is catastrophically naive about how totally player hubris will take over the game. It will be an immediate and total disaster.
Recruiting a player should end after they sign on the line. It's vital to their development that the leverage over their practice habits, their playing time, and their off-the-field behavior swings to the adults in the football program after the players arrive on campus.
This policy is catastrophically naive about how totally player hubris will take over the game. It will be an immediate and total disaster.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:56 am to FlexDawg
I have to agree. I mean in the pros there are contracts and we already have a transfer portal. There has to be something that binds a player to a team
Posted on 2/19/20 at 7:56 am to diddlydawg7
Yep... Better than Kirby
Posted on 2/19/20 at 8:01 am to FlexDawg
Richt is explaining LSU's strategy for getting good QBs.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 8:13 am to chillmonster
quote:
Fine. If you're correct this is simply a business with employees combining their efforts to create the best possible product for paying patrons
So give me your pay scale.Who gets paid and how much? What about schools that don't bmake money,? Does the state subsidize those payments? Gonna have to pay everybody BTW including those on equestrian scholorship.
Just don't get the issue with big time college athletics.Are you saying these kids would be better off without the millions flowing into these schools? Do you actually think they'll have more opportunity? Do you think schools are better off?
Posted on 2/19/20 at 8:29 am to RD Dawg
quote:
So give me your pay scale.Who gets paid and how much?
quote:
Are you saying these kids would be better off without the millions flowing into these schools?
I said the market would determine pay, not me, and the welfare of the kids isn't the most important thing. Remember?
Either the welfare of the athletes is the main concern or it isn't. It can't be first and foremost a business when talking about one thing then become mostly about doing what's best for kids' development when the topic changes.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 8:40 am to chillmonster
quote:
said the market would determine pay
I'm SURE that's gonna work out perfectly.So tell me how you do this with title IX?Details please
quote:
Either the welfare of the athletes is the main concern or it isn't.
Can't both be important? Why is this an either or situation?
Would you be happier and do you actually think kids/schools would be better off without big time athletics or are you just bitching over the perceived "unfairness?"
Posted on 2/19/20 at 9:05 am to uofarolltide
quote:
Nothing was wrong with college football. Why do they keep fricking with it?
I get called a conspiracy theorist (which is fine) but I continually say there is a push to destroy football in this country by leftists. You’ve seen it in the NFL on many fronts. You will see it in college football. This rule will hurt college football in the long run.
It is a push to convince the easily manipulated that athletes are being “wronged,” and then use that as justification to pass rules that water down the sport incrementally. Once athletes and a few fans become convinced how oppressive major college football is you can pass any rule under that justification.
The shitty refs are part and parcel of this, as is the push for pay4play and transfer on demand.
They want to destroy our sport. The sooner we all realize this the sooner we can at least acknowledge it openly.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 9:06 am to FlexDawg
Is he wrong?
Posted on 2/19/20 at 9:20 am to lostinbr
quote:
1. Young players who are looking to get on the field sooner
The onus is on them and their family to recognize this and make their best decision at the time of commitment.
quote:
2. Older players who have been passed up on the depth chart by younger talent
Made a commitment and allowing immediate transfers for this reason could really screw over team depth at a given position thereby hurting the remaining athletes on the team.
quote:
3. Players who feel they have been sleighted by their program in some way - either due to coaches leaving, suspensions, off the field issues, etc.
There is already a mechanism in place for this. It is just not instant.
quote:
4. Players who are looking to play for a more talented team - either to boost draft stock, compete for championships, etc.
This should not be up for consideration.
Bonus: You should not pay college athletes beyond their scholarships and the privileges along with it. Their Stipends may need increasing but it should remain in the form of a stipend and they should not be able to make money from name, image, or likeness.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 10:44 am to RD Dawg
quote:
I'm SURE that's gonna work out perfectly.So tell me how you do this with title IX?Details please
Can't both be important? Why is this an either or situation?
Would you be happier and do you actually think kids/schools would be better off without big time athletics or are you just bitching over the perceived "unfairness?"
Compensation structure is not my problem, and it's beside the point.
I'm advocating for relaxed transfer rules to allow players the freedom everyone else gets. If we're handcuffing players to satisfy patrons, we can't turn around play the amateurism card when it comes to compensation. Either it's first and foremost a business or it isn't, and if it isn't then ADs and coaches who are paid very well to navigate rules will have to find ways to deal with transfers. It's a free country. Student athletes should have common freedoms as long as there isn't abuse.
The new rules make sense and the sport will survive just fine.
Posted on 2/19/20 at 10:46 am to FlexDawg
Hey Rev Richt, why not say the same thing when Coaches get poached, aren't they supposed to be way more valuable than the players?
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News