Pages:
Actions
  • #1 by WilsonHog on 13 Jun 2018
  • Basically, a player can play up to any four games in a season without losing a season of eligibility.

    https://twitter.com/ncaa/status/1006940975569276928?s=21

    Also, starting in October, student-athletes can transfer and receive a scholarship without asking their school for permission.

    https://twitter.com/ncaa/status/1006934119366955008?s=21
  • #2 by Karma on 13 Jun 2018
  • I like both ideas.
  • #3 by WilsonHog on 13 Jun 2018
  • I like both ideas.

    The first rule change has some interesting angles. A coach could use the first four games as a tryout to see if a player is ready. If not, the kid can then redshirt.

    Or, suppose Jalen Hurts loses the starting job and then doesn’t play until Tua gets injured with four games or less to play in the season. Hurts could start the rest of the season and then transfer without losing a season of eligibility.
  • #4 by rzrbkman on 13 Jun 2018
  • I read the link but did not see what l was looking for. I'm guessing that each athlete can only do this one time and it would still count as the redshirt year?
  • #5 by Ched "UglyUncle" Carpenter on 13 Jun 2018
  • The first rule change has some interesting angles. A coach could use the first four games as a tryout to see if a player is ready. If not, the kid can then redshirt.

    Or, suppose Jalen Hurts loses the starting job and then doesn’t play until Tua gets injured with four games or less to play in the season. Hurts could start the rest of the season and then transfer without losing a season of eligibility.

    That is what I was wondering?  Any 4 games?  Meaning we can play a guy in the last three games of the season and the bowl game without them losing a year?  I'm not crazy about that one.

    I guess in game 2 you have a play for them.  Game 5 need some extra depth.  Game 8 a little special teams work.  Game 11 they get mop up duty.  I guess that might be good for the player and their progress.

  • #6 by WilsonHog on 13 Jun 2018
  • That is what I was wondering?  Any 4 games?  Meaning we can play a guy in the last three games of the season and the bowl game without them losing a year?  I'm not crazy about that one.

    I guess in game 2 you have a play for them.  Game 5 need some extra depth.  Game 8 a little special teams work.  Game 11 they get mop up duty.  I guess that might be good for the player and their progress.

    My understanding is any four games.

    Also, Alabama had a couple of true freshmen who played key roles in the national title game last January. If this rule were in place then, those kids would still be freshmen this season.
  • #7 by Ched "UglyUncle" Carpenter on 13 Jun 2018
  • My understanding is any four games.

    Also, Alabama had a couple of true freshmen who played key roles in the national title game last January. If this rule were in place then, those kids would still be freshmen this season.

    If our understanding of the rule is correct then this might be a good thing after all.

    It would almost be like a farm system for freshmen while they redshirt.  They practice, they get some real game experience, and they still have 4 more years to play.

    We might actually have more players redshirting.  A lot of times when you burn a redshirt you play a kid more just so it isn't a waste.  This way, if you need the kid for a game or two you will still have him for 4 more years.
  • #8 by 3Scoreand10 on 13 Jun 2018
  • So Coach Morris could start one of the freshman QBs the first 2 or 3 games and if they are not going to be successful he could redshirt them and start over next year.
    Sounds like a plan to me.
  • #9 by rzrbkman on 13 Jun 2018
  • The worst loss of a season of football eligibility that I have ever see happen to a Razorback was to OL Jose Valdez. According to his team bio, he played 9 snaps in the season opener(2006 I believe it was)against Missouri St., never played again that season and that counted as a season of eligibility. I think he started his last 2 years at Arkansas.
  • #10 by FineAsSwine on 13 Jun 2018
  • Basically, a player can play up to any four games in a season without losing a season of eligibility.

    https://twitter.com/ncaa/status/1006940975569276928?s=21

    Also, starting in October, student-athletes can transfer and receive a scholarship without asking their school for permission.

    https://twitter.com/ncaa/status/1006934119366955008?s=21

    From the linked info above:

    "The Division I Council adopted a proposal this week that creates a new “notification-of-transfer” model. This new system allows a student to inform his or her current school of a desire to transfer, then requires that school to enter the student’s name into a national transfer database within two business days. Once the student-athlete’s name is in the database, other coaches are free to contact that individual."


    So, after getting benched or otherwise not getting the minutes a player may feel he deserves, now players can jump ship at any time and they are back on the market in two days?

    Coaches may be a little more reluctant to use the bench to discipline a talented player than in the past because it is much easier and less confrontational now for the player to just bolt than to conform or shape up.
  • #11 by Ex-Trumpet on 13 Jun 2018
  • From the linked info above:

    "The Division I Council adopted a proposal this week that creates a new “notification-of-transfer” model. This new system allows a student to inform his or her current school of a desire to transfer, then requires that school to enter the student’s name into a national transfer database within two business days. Once the student-athlete’s name is in the database, other coaches are free to contact that individual."


    So, after getting benched or otherwise not getting the minutes a player may feel he deserves, now players can jump ship at any time and they are back on the market in two days?

    Coaches may be a little more reluctant to use the bench to discipline a talented player than in the past because it is much easier and less confrontational now for the player to just bolt than to conform or shape up.


    What happens if a school fails to enter the wannabe transfer into the database?
  • #12 by WilsonHog on 13 Jun 2018
  • From the linked info above:

    "The Division I Council adopted a proposal this week that creates a new “notification-of-transfer” model. This new system allows a student to inform his or her current school of a desire to transfer, then requires that school to enter the student’s name into a national transfer database within two business days. Once the student-athlete’s name is in the database, other coaches are free to contact that individual."


    So, after getting benched or otherwise not getting the minutes a player may feel he deserves, now players can jump ship at any time and they are back on the market in two days?

    Coaches may be a little more reluctant to use the bench to discipline a talented player than in the past because it is much easier and less confrontational now for the player to just bolt than to conform or shape up.

    I think Lincoln Riley had a comment on this earlier. He analogized it to the waiver wire in fantasy football.

    Now, I suppose individual conferences could have their own rule.
  • #13 by phadedhawg on 13 Jun 2018
  • Didn't read the link, headed to a meeting but will this lessen the need for medical redshirts???
  • #14 by WilsonHog on 13 Jun 2018
  • Didn't read the link, headed to a meeting but will this lessen the need for medical redshirts???

    May eliminate it.
  • #15 by FineAsSwine on 13 Jun 2018
  • I think Lincoln Riley had a comment on this earlier. He analogized it to the waiver wire in fantasy football.

    Now, I suppose individual conferences could have their own rule.

    If so, wouldn't other conferences get a leg up if their conference rules weren't as restrictive?
  • #16 by TebowHater on 13 Jun 2018
  • CBB loved the 4 game rule. He was one of the biggest champions.
  • #17 by Hogtimes on 13 Jun 2018
  • The next thing will be 5 years of eligibility and no redshirting of any kind.   Most students now take 5 or 6 years to complete a 4 year program anyway.
  • #18 by greenEGnHAWGS on 13 Jun 2018
  • I fear that opening transfer rules like this it just is going to add more problems to the NCAA. Teams like Bama are going to benefit the most. For instance: Player A goes lightly recruited and ends up going to a middle of the pack team. He begins to KILL it on the field and what’s to stop a cyber “bag man” to just let him know, “Hey, we have interest in your talents. Come play for a championship team.”

    Knowing that if you tear it up on the field, you’ll have a chance to jump teams without repercussion is just a bad idea imo.
  • #19 by Ex-Trumpet on 13 Jun 2018
  • I fear that opening transfer rules like this it just is going to add more problems to the NCAA. Teams like Bama are going to benefit the most. For instance: Player A goes lightly recruited and ends up going to a middle of the pack team. He begins to KILL it on the field and what’s to stop a cyber “bag man” to just let him know, “Hey, we have interest in your talents. Come play for a championship team.”

    Knowing that if you tear it up on the field, you’ll have a chance to jump teams without repercussion is just a bad idea imo.

    On the other hand, coaches have been doing this exact same thing for years.

    And, so has corporate America.
  • #20 by greenEGnHAWGS on 13 Jun 2018
  • On the other hand, coaches have been doing this exact same thing for years.

    And, so has corporate America.

    Give a foot, the higher-powers will take a mile. Give a mile, and it’ll be almost uncontrollable. 

    ...imo of course.

  • #21 by jgphillips3 on 13 Jun 2018
  • The redshirt rule is great all the way around.  The transfer rule will probably be a mixed bag from the University perspective but it is great for the individual player.
  • #22 by Karma on 13 Jun 2018
  • I fear that opening transfer rules like this it just is going to add more problems to the NCAA. Teams like Bama are going to benefit the most. For instance: Player A goes lightly recruited and ends up going to a middle of the pack team. He begins to KILL it on the field and what’s to stop a cyber “bag man” to just let him know, “Hey, we have interest in your talents. Come play for a championship team.”

    Knowing that if you tear it up on the field, you’ll have a chance to jump teams without repercussion is just a bad idea imo.
    Almost like it's a free country.

    This could help Arkansas. Maybe a player isn't getting the playing time at Bama they want, so they come to us to play. Or maybe a player is doing very good for UCA, but wants to step up their level of competition.
  • #23 by FineAsSwine on 13 Jun 2018
  • Almost like it's a free country.

    This could help Arkansas. Maybe a player isn't getting the playing time at Bama they want, so they come to us to play. Or maybe a player is doing very good for UCA, but wants to step up their level of competition.

    Maybe instead of greyshirting a kid, Bama encourages him to sign elsewhere and then transfer in after a year.
  • #24 by greenEGnHAWGS on 14 Jun 2018
  • Almost like it's a free country.

    This could help Arkansas. Maybe a player isn't getting the playing time at Bama they want, so they come to us to play. Or maybe a player is doing very good for UCA, but wants to step up their level of competition.

    Free countries still have rules for the betterment of the entities that make up said countries.

    Like already said, Bama’s pitch on the trail could EASILY be “We just don’t have room, but if you can stay healthy and work hard, we’ll get you in next year.” And just like that, the system fails. So yes, we can also pull from UCA while tOSU, Bama, Auburn, Clemson, etc will pull from the “Arkansas”s of the NCAA.
  • #25 by redleg on 14 Jun 2018
  • Four games is too many. And this transfer rule is going to end up being a nightmare.
    So many people get their panties in a bunch over the rules surrounding amateur college athletics..."Why can't they just transfer without repercussions?", "why don't they pay the players?", blah, blah, blah.
    Once you start tweaking things in established rules, often times the tweaks become never-ending, and then it's a bureaucratic cluster-flop (< not the word I wanted to use!).
  • #26 by Pork Twain on 14 Jun 2018
  • The first rule change has some interesting angles. A coach could use the first four games as a tryout to see if a player is ready. If not, the kid can then redshirt.

    Or, suppose Jalen Hurts loses the starting job and then doesn’t play until Tua gets injured with four games or less to play in the season. Hurts could start the rest of the season and then transfer without losing a season of eligibility.
    I could see it like an MLB September call-up as well.
  • #27 by go hogues on 14 Jun 2018
  • Maybe instead of greyshirting a kid, Bama encourages him to sign elsewhere and then transfer in after a year.
    Yep.

    Bama will exploit this to the hilt and start making every other school their farm system.
  • #28 by Karma on 14 Jun 2018
  • Free countries still have rules for the betterment of the entities that make up said countries.

    Like already said, Bama’s pitch on the trail could EASILY be “We just don’t have room, but if you can stay healthy and work hard, we’ll get you in next year.” And just like that, the system fails. So yes, we can also pull from UCA while tOSU, Bama, Auburn, Clemson, etc will pull from the “Arkansas”s of the NCAA.
    This rule had overwhelming support of coaches. Not just from top 10 programs, but throughout. Todd Berry when he was at ULM lead the charge. So it's not just a rich getting richer situation.
  • #29 by scorekeeper on 14 Jun 2018
  • I like the redshirt rule. Coaches will become very creative in game planning. I see it giving a coach with a great offensive mind a leg up it is hard to plan for something that you haven't seen. 
  • #30 by ErieHog on 14 Jun 2018
  • Overall, these changes aren't going to be supremely helpful for a program like ours, unless we sit down and spend a few years taking our medicine, and getting lucky.

    We thrive on experienced depth.   The 4 games a year option may allow for us to have an easier time developing it-- but-- everyone else will get the same benefit, and convincing kids to stick with your program after only partial playing time to game the 4 game system, may prove very hard indeed, especially for the most talented who can flee to feed elite programs with needs.
  • #31 by hogsanity on 14 Jun 2018
  • Transfers are still going to have to sit out a year. All this rule does is preclude schools from blocking them from going someplace else, and allows them to be on scholarship at their new school. It is not going to let a kid transfer in October and play in Nov.

    As for the redshirts, all it does is close the " well he played in 3 games but then got hurt " stuff we hear about. While I am sure coaches will find ways to use it to keep some young kids happy while not losing a year, it is more likely it will be used if someone needs a RB in a late year game or wants to get a look in a Nov OOC game at some young kids. OR if your season tanks, might as well play the freshmen in the last 3 or 4 games to get some game experience.
  • #32 by LRRandy on 14 Jun 2018
  • Yep.

    Bama will exploit this to the hilt and start making every other school their farm system.
    they still only get 85 scholarships. They bring in the top recruiting class most years. Their ability to use other schools as a farm system will be minute. Why so scare?
  • #33 by ErieHog on 14 Jun 2018
  • they still only get 85 scholarships. They bring in the top recruiting class most years. Their ability to use other schools as a farm system will be minute. Why so scare?

    Its not the Alabamas of the world people should worry about;  its the Tennessee-Auburn classification, that can plug and play project where they'll be short in 2 years.   The second tier is where the real windfall will be.
  • #34 by 31to6 on 14 Jun 2018
  • So I have not seen anywhere in the rules change where undergrad transfers will not have to sit out a year. So there is still that disincentive for a player transferring.

    I don't see Alabama really saying "we know we are going to be thin on LB in 2021 so we are going to recruit a guy playing for Arkansas in 2019 to come transfer and sit out 2020".

    I mean, of course it will happen more, but sitting out a year really puts a lot of uncertainty on the player. "Dude, they are a great program, but they also have a 5* and a 4* in their incoming freshman class that will be competing for that spot. There is no guarantee that you will have a spot in the rotation 2 years from now".

    I think most transfers are players that are either a) unhappy b) have some family issue or c) are not getting playing time.

    That all being said, I do think there is a potential for this rule to make the "unofficial agent/uncle/'friend of family' middleman" situation worse as they will now glom onto blue chippers not just for their recruitment but will keep popping up like an STD for their whole college career.

     
  • #35 by hogsanity on 14 Jun 2018
  • So I have not seen anywhere in the rules change where undergrad transfers will not have to sit out a year. So there is still that disincentive for a player transferring.

    I don't see Alabama really saying "we know we are going to be thin on LB in 2021 so we are going to recruit a guy playing for Arkansas in 2019 to come transfer and sit out 2020".

    I mean, of course it will happen more, but sitting out a year really puts a lot of uncertainty on the player. "Dude, they are a great program, but they also have a 5* and a 4* in their incoming freshman class that will be competing for that spot. There is no guarantee that you will have a spot in the rotation 2 years from now".

    I think most transfers are players that are either a) unhappy b) have some family issue or c) are not getting playing time.

    That all being said, I do think there is a potential for this rule to make the "unofficial agent/uncle/'friend of family' middleman" situation worse as they will now glom onto blue chippers not just for their recruitment but will keep popping up like an STD for their whole college career.

     

    IMO, it is much ado about nothing. It is good for the student athlete to be able to transfer without a butthurt coach saying they cant go to this school or that school. They still have to sit out a year, and other schools can recruit them once they file their intent to transfer. As long as undergrads have to sit a year if they transfer, we will not see free agency, so to speak. 
  • #36 by 31to6 on 14 Jun 2018
  • IMO, it is much ado about nothing. It is good for the student athlete to be able to transfer without a butthurt coach saying they cant go to this school or that school. They still have to sit out a year, and other schools can recruit them once they file their intent to transfer. As long as undergrads have to sit a year if they transfer, we will not see free agency, so to speak. 
    Agree. I left out "d) unhappy with a coaching change or program sanctions".

    I 100% think that players should be able to freely transfer after a head coaching change or if the program receives serious sanctions (ie: a post season ban).

    Indeed, I think that players should be able to transfer *without sitting out a year* if the head coach is fired or if the program receives sanctions.

    It really is not fair to punish a player because the school fired their coach and the new guy runs a completely different scheme or is flipping the roster, or just doesn't have a role for that player... or really, any reason at all.
  • #37 by LRRandy on 14 Jun 2018
  • I like the redshirt rule. Coaches will become very creative in game planning. I see it giving a coach with a great offensive mind a leg up it is hard to plan for something that you haven't seen.
    unless a team is VERY deep any player that could give a coach an advantage will be in the regular game plan and not just a hidden gimmick.
  • #38 by hogsanity on 14 Jun 2018
  • Agree. I left out "d) unhappy with a coaching change or program sanctions".

    I 100% think that players should be able to freely transfer after a head coaching change or if the program receives serious sanctions (ie: a post season ban).

    Indeed, I think that players should be able to transfer *without sitting out a year* if the head coach is fired or if the program receives sanctions.

    It really is not fair to punish a player because the school fired their coach and the new guy runs a completely different scheme or is flipping the roster, or just doesn't have a role for that player... or really, any reason at all.

    I think all players should get 1 free transfer, regardless of reason, with out sitting out. But if you want to transfer again, you must sit 2 years.

    Also, lost in the new rules, conferences can still enact their own transfer rules, such as not letting players transfer between schools within their division or even the entire league.
  • #39 by SooieGeneris on 14 Jun 2018
  • It's hard to say whether these new rules are good or bad for schools like UA. It will take awhile to see how it shakes out.

    One thing for sure though is that little St. Nick at 'Bama will make it work to their advantage, as if they needed the help.

    With their football staff of seemingly 784 people, many fired ex head coaches hired as "analysts" or "consultants" they have a built in advantage in figuring all this out while others are scrambling to get a grip on the new rules.

    IMO, the NCAA needs to look at overall staff size etc, not just on the field coaches... Otherwise, Alabama may be winning NCs until Saban is 87. He's already nearly 70 and shows no sign of slowing down.
  • #40 by greasy_corner on 14 Jun 2018
  • CBB loved the 4 game rule. He was one of the biggest champions.

    The 4 game rule, as in wins per season?
  • #41 by PolishPigPower on 14 Jun 2018
  • This rule had overwhelming support of coaches. Not just from top 10 programs, but throughout. Todd Berry when he was at ULM lead the charge. So it's not just a rich getting richer situation.

    The flipside that Berry saw was to tell a kid, "Hey, I know Bama wants to greyshirt you, but you could come here to ULM and play right now.  Stick around a year and if you don't like it, you get to go where you want."

    Allows the little brothers to get good, young talent before they mature and head off to the bigger schools.  Almost like a glorified JUCO system...
  • #42 by Karma on 14 Jun 2018
  • The flipside that Berry saw was to tell a kid, "Hey, I know Bama wants to greyshirt you, but you could come here to ULM and play right now.  Stick around a year and if you don't like it, you get to go where you want."

    Allows the little brothers to get good, young talent before they mature and head off to the bigger schools.  Almost like a glorified JUCO system...
    Same of ya'll think no matter what happens its bad for arkansas.
  • #43 by hogsanity on 14 Jun 2018
  • Bama is not going to start loading up on transfers that have to sit out a year. They do not have to do that. Plus, doing that really messes with your signing #'s as you still have the 85 limit.
  • #44 by Uberanubis on 14 Jun 2018
  • correct me if i am wrong, on the transfer rule they will still have to sit a year unless its a step down in divisions?
  • #45 by oldhog63 on 14 Jun 2018
  • The next thing will be 5 years of eligibility and no redshirting of any kind.   Most students now take 5 or 6 years to complete a 4 year program anyway.
    I agree. Was getting ready to say this and then saw your post.
  • #46 by cram224 on 14 Jun 2018
  • What happens if a team is 0-4, player doesn't like to lose, informs coach he no longer wants to play this season? What if ten players decide they don't want to lose a year?
  • #47 by Uberanubis on 14 Jun 2018
  • What happens if a team is 0-4, player doesn't like to lose, informs coach he no longer wants to play this season? What if ten players decide they don't want to lose a year?

    did not realize the players decided they got to play or not. so i would go ahead and make an ass of my self by assuming its still on the coach to file the paperwork to red shirt
  • #48 by oldhog63 on 14 Jun 2018
  • I don’t think it will make that much difference in transfers. Top players don’t start out on top. They work hard to get there and generally develop close relationships with their teammates. They will not want to start over working their way up the depth chart and/or developing new relationships. If they are a team leader there will also be pressure from their teammates to stay.

    The ones transferring will be the same type of guys / situations that are transferring today.
  • #49 by LRRandy on 14 Jun 2018
  • What happens if a team is 0-4, player doesn't like to lose, informs coach he no longer wants to play this season? What if ten players decide they don't want to lose a year?
    if the players are on an 0-4 team and quitting, you probably know why you were 0-4. Let em go.
  • #50 by Dumb ole famrboy on 14 Jun 2018
  • Agree. I left out "d) unhappy with a coaching change or program sanctions".

    I 100% think that players should be able to freely transfer after a head coaching change or if the program receives serious sanctions (ie: a post season ban).

    Indeed, I think that players should be able to transfer *without sitting out a year* if the head coach is fired or if the program receives sanctions.

    It really is not fair to punish a player because the school fired their coach and the new guy runs a completely different scheme or is flipping the roster, or just doesn't have a role for that player... or really, any reason at all.
    Being that most scholarships are 1 year contracts - I think a kid should be able to let it lapse and sign a new one to play at any school they wish. If they are under a 4 year scholarship contract - then no.
Pages:
Actions