Fallout from the one-time transfer rule?

[Probably_in_Class]

There is no externally imposed limit on how many "regular students" can enter a particular university. If 100 students transfer from LSU to Auburn, neither school is restricted from replacing those students in whatever fashion they choose. I read that 1700 players entered the transfer portal. If half transfer, that is 850 fewer scholarships available this year for graduating HS players.

I think it makes sense to adopt rules that allow a school to recover from a mass transfer year. Maybe an extra initial qualifier for every two that leave. You don't want schools encouraging transfers, either.

That total shocked me.

Transfer portal updates: Tracking Power Five transfers

Sports is supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy. If you aren't good enough in high school to be more appealing to a coach than a transfer, then you don't deserve a spot/scholarship. This is athletics, not charity.

 

[SaintLouisVol]

I not disagreeing on the 25 from a high school standpoint. However, an unintended consequence of transfers is fewer HS players may get a scholarship.

For example, team A and B can give 25 scholarships and hit 85 total.

Team A gives 25 to HS players and then has 5 transfer. They only have 80 on scholarship now.

Team B gives 20 to HS and gets the 5 transfers. They have 85 but there are fewer players total and the group that gets hit is the high school players.

It's not going to have much of an affect on the big schools, but there are fewer scholarships given every year because of the transfers. Not everyone thinks this is wrong, but it is a real consequence that boils down to less people getting scholarships.

It also results in scholarships not being offered, or worse pulled, from HS guys based on unexpected transfers.

At the macro level, I think it sort of works out. Every year, college football as a whole loses 20+% of its players automatically due to having completed eligibility. So, even with transfers going on, some school, somewhere, ought to have open slots for HS players because that 20+% has to be replenished from the HS pool.

But your example is correct. I agree that something must be considered to account for it because of its impact to a given team. If team A had that happen a few years in a row, there would be serious issues.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Sports is supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy. If you aren't good enough in high school to be more appealing to a coach than a transfer, then you don't deserve a spot/scholarship. This is athletics, not charity.

Then why stop when they graduate? Why make them be students? Why make them attend class? If the loss of 1700 scholarships net each year doesn't give you pause, I don't know that any reasonable rules on participation are going to make sense.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

Then why stop when they graduate? Why make them be students? Why make them attend class? If the loss of 1700 scholarships net each year doesn't give you pause, I don't know that any reasonable rules on participation are going to make sense.

How are 1700 scholarships disappearing annually? Your own example only created 850 new initial counters which could, but not definitely, eliminate 850 positions for high school seniors. There are still 85 scholarships to give at every school, so someone is still getting all that money whether it's a transfer, a freshman, or a former walk-on. There really isn't any "loss" of scholarships.

As for your other questions, they are nonsense. They are students who attend class because UT is a school. I was granted the right to attend the school in exchange for money. Athletes are granted the right to attend the school by being good at a sport. If you want one of those scholarships, be good at your sport. If you're not good enough, pay money or don't attend. It's that simple.

 

[LittleVol]

Interesting topic, I'll chime in.

If a player is truly a "student" they should be able to transfer to any school they academically qualify for without restrictions or penalties, just like any other student. Let's be honest here, we're talking about the blue chip studs and all the money generated by college football.

Make football like baseball, hockey, and basketball (minus the stupid one and done rule) - create a NFL D league or farm league. Tighten down on college programs playing players and return college football to the student athlete. If all a kid wants to do is play football, let him go play football and earn his way to the NFL that way.

Many kids go to the MLB straight from HS or go into the minors, but college baseball is still entertaining and most of those players stay and graduate. Granted, I know that a HS senior football player is in no way ready to play against 22-35 year old professionals, but after a few years in a minor league football program he could get called up to play in the NFL. I think it would also filter out many of the busts in the NFL. Each NFL team can have one minor league team in a small market city.

No.
Because who is going to watch college football then? College football is par with the NFL in making money. They are not going to weaken that product by letting all the best players play in some d league for 2 seasons

 

[JRich]

No.
Because who is going to watch college football then? College football is par with the NFL in making money. They are not going to weaken that product by letting all the best players play in some d league for 2 seasons

Well, I know they wouldn't do it, doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Plenty of people would still watch college football. Absurd to think that the "Grand Rapids Silverhawks" are going to draw ticket and merchandise sales away from Michigan or Michigan State. If everyone is on the same level, you would still have competition, rather than the embarrassment of riches that a handful of teams enjoy. Competition is what draws the fans, not the players. There're lots of good football players that want a college education and graduate before going pro, and even the ones that aren't so popular can have a go in the D league after graduating. The NFL teams can have their late round picks develop in the lesser league, rather than dropping them.

BTW, the the NFL (32 teams) had revenue reach $16 billion in 2019, all college sports (1,100 schools, all sports) saw revenue at $10.6 billion. I wouldn't say that is "on par."

Finances of Intercollegiate Athletics.

"The total athletics revenue reported among all NCAA athletics departments in 2019 was $18.9 billion. Of that amount, approximately $10.6 billion (56%) was generated revenue by the athletics departments, leaving nearly $8.3 billion (44%) that had to be subsidized by other sources at schools across the Association, such as institutional support and student fees."

You can Google the NFL stat and find multiple sources.

 

[LWSVOL]

I don’t see the benefit for smaller schools. Players have never needed to sit out a year if they transferred from FBS to FCS.

those schools he named are not FCS schools. they are FBS and would have required sitting a year EDIT: My bad, he also named some FCS schools..

 

[LWSVOL]

You know there's going to be issues, both positive and negative. I can see the non power 5 schools (MTSU, Southern Miss, La Tech, etc.) and smaller schools (UTC, Jacksonville St. etc.) getting better players because of it. If a player at Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, etc. hasn't earned a starting position or significant playing time by his junior year, why transfer to another power 5 school? This one time transfer rule really opens up a bunch of unknowns that may get rather interesting.

the real issue will be the number of players trying to transfer that end up out of football and out of college.. From the 2020 portal

1,220 Players in Portal
618 of 1,220 from P5 team
151 of 618 P5 signed with another P5 school
118 of 618 P5 didn't sign anywhere
240 of 1,220 signed with a P5 team
327 of 1,220 didn't sign anywhere

 

[gohogs14]

Who wants to transfer to Alabama or Clemson to ride the pine? Who is to say that the backups aren’t better players than what Tennessee or Arkansas has starting? Btw Arkansas sucks just as bad as Tennessee does troll.

Those two aren't going to offer players who aren't good enough to start. If I'm Saban I look at guys like Jaycee Horn or Nick Bolton who will be top 3 round draft picks.

And I never even said anything about Arkansas or Tennessee in this thread lol. They may be better players all I'm saying is Alabama is getting the better end of that deal for sure.

 

[BondJamesBond]

How are 1700 scholarships disappearing annually? Your own example only created 850 new initial counters which could, but not definitely, eliminate 850 positions for high school seniors. There are still 85 scholarships to give at every school, so someone is still getting all that money whether it's a transfer, a freshman, or a former walk-on. There really isn't any "loss" of scholarships.

As for your other questions, they are nonsense.

Every player who moves took an initial scholarship from his original school and one from his new school. The old school does not recoup that original scholarship that counted against the 25 for the player's freshman year. You can "nonsense " all you want but if you game this out, there is a significant loss of scholarships. My original example assumed on 50% of transfers happened. Obviously the potential is as high as the number of players entering the portal. I assume you see this and only want the argument.

 

[LWSVOL]

Every player who moves took an initial scholarship from his original school and one from his new school. The old school does not recoup that original scholarship that counted against the 25 for the player's freshman year. You can "nonsense " all you want but if you game this out, there is a significant loss of scholarships. My original example assumed on 50% of transfers happened. Obviously the potential is as high as the number of players entering the portal. I assume you see this and only want the argument.

I agree with you on players leaving prior to completing their eligibility that it is a lost scholarship. But long before the transfer rule, schools lost scholarships that way with high numbers..

since the 2002 signing classes, the SEC has an attrition rate of 43% of signees. Tennessee leads with the highest percent of losses since 2002 with 47% of players signed leaving due to transfer, dismissal, injury, just quitting football or player never made it to campus after signing their NLI. Georgia does the best at retaining players losing only 35%. Alabama and Florida are the only other 2 SEC schools with less than 40% attrition during that time frame.

 

[LittleVol]

Well, I know they wouldn't do it, doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Plenty of people would still watch college football. Absurd to think that the "Grand Rapids Silverhawks" are going to draw ticket and merchandise sales away from Michigan or Michigan State. If everyone is on the same level, you would still have competition, rather than the embarrassment of riches that a handful of teams enjoy. Competition is what draws the fans, not the players. There're lots of good football players that want a college education and graduate before going pro, and even the ones that aren't so popular can have a go in the D league after graduating. The NFL teams can have their late round picks develop in the lesser league, rather than dropping them.

BTW, the the NFL (32 teams) had revenue reach $16 billion in 2019, all college sports (1,100 schools, all sports) saw revenue at $10.6 billion. I wouldn't say that is "on par."

Finances of Intercollegiate Athletics.

"The total athletics revenue reported among all NCAA athletics departments in 2019 was $18.9 billion. Of that amount, approximately $10.6 billion (56%) was generated revenue by the athletics departments, leaving nearly $8.3 billion (44%) that had to be subsidized by other sources at schools across the Association, such as institutional support and student fees."

You can Google the NFL stat and find multiple sources.

And now imagine how much less that would be if all the 5 star athlete's never went to a college campus.

Now what the NCAA can't stop is the movement that WILL happen in that some players that blossom early into NFL prospects will transfer for their 3rd year to a good team with others in the same boat.

Think in 1997 , if Randy Moss and Charles Woodson had joined Peyton in Knoxville for their last season's.

The way social media is these days. Soon You will get Colleges that have a whole new recruiting strategy. Maybe you can't be an Alabama, or Clemson, but every 5 years or so if you've created enough good players you can get 3-4 All- Conference players from other schools to come on board and make a run for the playoffs!

 

[Probably_in_Class]

Every player who moves took an initial scholarship from his original school and one from his new school. The old school does not recoup that original scholarship that counted against the 25 for the player's freshman year. You can "nonsense " all you want but if you game this out, there is a significant loss of scholarships. My original example assumed on 50% of transfers happened. Obviously the potential is as high as the number of players entering the portal. I assume you see this and only want the argument.

Sure, it takes some initial counters out of the equation, but it doesn't eliminate any scholarships. There are 127 D1 football programs which all get 85 scholarships. That's a total of 10,795. If 0 of those scholarship players transfer, there are 10,795 scholarships available. If 1,000 players transfer, there are 10,795 scholarships available. If 10,000 players transfer, there are 10,795 scholarships available.

Giving a scholarship to a walk-on does not count against your 25 initial counters. Might some of those scholarships now go to walk-ons as opposed to high school freshmen? Sure, that's a definite possibility, but I don't consider that a bad thing. I'd prefer to reward a few guys who have worked and proven themselves in the program as opposed to taking a few more lottery ticket high school kids.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Sure, it takes some initial counters out of the equation, but it doesn't eliminate any scholarships. There are 127 D1 football programs which all get 85 scholarships. That's a total of 10,795. If 0 of those scholarship players transfer, there are 10,795 scholarships available. If 1,000 players transfer, there are 10,795 scholarships available. If 10,000 players transfer, there are 10,795 scholarships available.

Giving a scholarship to a walk-on does not count against your 25 initial counters. Might some of those scholarships now go to walk-ons as opposed to high school freshmen? Sure, that's a definite possibility, but I don't consider that a bad thing. I'd prefer to reward a few guys who have worked and proven themselves in the program as opposed to taking a few more lottery ticket high school kids.

Unless the rule recently changed an initial counter is an initial counter regardless of whether he came to the school as a new freshman, grad transfer, walk on, or transfer. If you can find anything that says otherwise, let me know. I can't. Nobody gets that slot. It's gone. If you have over 85 players, the transfer doesn't hurt as much, but a team like Tennessee with low numbers is unable to recover to 85 scholarships.

UT lost a bunch of players to transfer, so the 85 limit means nothing for a few years, but the cap at 25 is a big deal. If we sign 25 players this year and 10 of them transfer to WVa next year, we don't get to recoup those scholarships. Our 2021 class will be 15 players moving forward now and forever.. Meanwhile, WVa spent out of their 25 scholarships for next year. Net effect between the two teams is ten fewer players on scholarship during this two years. We don't get to replace those guys who were basically initial qualifiers twice.

This isn't the most corrupt thing in college sports, but it does reduce the total number of players on scholarship. There are lots of moving parts on the total impact, but it is negative in terms of total players on scholarship.

 

[peaygolf]

one thing also being overlooked from the majority are the impact on highschool players. Teams are going to start holding scholarships for potential transfers instead of offering a kid out of highschool.

Nailed it!

 

[sanefan]

Sure, it takes some initial counters out of the equation, but it doesn't eliminate any scholarships. There are 127 D1 football programs which all get 85 scholarships. That's a total of 10,795. If 0 of those scholarship players transfer, there are 10,795 scholarships available. If 1,000 players transfer, there are 10,795 scholarships available. If 10,000 players transfer, there are 10,795 scholarships available...

Sure it can. If a player transfer to a new school, the new school would give 1 less to a HS player. This may or may not be able to be made up at the old school. If it was already going to be able to extend 25 scholarships before the transfer happened, it cannot give 26 even though there is room under 85.

Anybody can feel this is not a problem if they want. However, we should expect that as more transfers happen, fewer scholarships will be given out under current rules, and the ones most effected are the low end HS players.

 

[Wireless1]

How are 1700 scholarships disappearing annually? Your own example only created 850 new initial counters which could, but not definitely, eliminate 850 positions for high school seniors. There are still 85 scholarships to give at every school, so someone is still getting all that money whether it's a transfer, a freshman, or a former walk-on. There really isn't any "loss" of scholarships.

As for your other questions, they are nonsense. They are students who attend class because UT is a school. I was granted the right to attend the school in exchange for money. Athletes are granted the right to attend the school by being good at a sport. If you want one of those scholarships, be good at your sport. If you're not good enough, pay money or don't attend. It's that simple.

To add to your point, there are 10,625 D1 football scholarships available every year, 85 per team. A team is only allowed (currently) to add 25 new athletes each year with a standard eligibility of 5 years (with the new redshirt rules you can play in 5 seasons) - Just like Butch used blue shirts and gray shirts to sign 35 players one year, there will be creative ways to make sure those 85 spots are filled every year.....the kid that will be initially hurt will be the 2 or 3 stars that in the past received the last 2 or 3 scholarships to P5 schools that will have to go to a group of 5, and develop then transfer to a P5

 

[VOLINVONORE]

one thing also being overlooked from the majority are the impact on highschool players. Teams are going to start holding scholarships for potential transfers instead of offering a kid out of highschool.

maybe, but the same number of high school will get scholarships. They may be fewer new ones to the Power 5 and more to the other D1 and D2 schools. This would allow the D2 guys to have the opportunity to get to a Power 5 or other D1 school. In the long run, it may make the Powers 5 schools more evenly matched. I have a grand son who's high school coach would not recommend any of his players to a Power 5 school and would barely recommend his players to any school. My grand son ended up playing in the D2 National championship game and caught 5 out of 6 passes thrown his way for 198 yards and 3 TDs. With todays rules, he would have had opportunities to play in Power 5 schools and other D1 schools.

 

[Sarms58]

The new rule will help kids who make bad decisions when signing with a school. Justin Fields comes to mind...I don’t care how good he was or thought he was, he was crazy to sign with Georgia when Jake Fromm had just completed an incredible freshman season...the only way Fields was gonna get serious playing time was if Fromm got injured...Fields didn’t get good advice and it cost him a year of playing time...

 

[ptcarter]

On a positive note, hopefully we won't have to worry about losing to GA State again...

I wasn't worried about losing to Georgia State last time. Battered Vol Syndrome alive and well. Hopefully this season we can beat a few of the so called "powder puff" teams. I will believe it when I see it though.

 

[Vfl2407]

I wasn't worried about losing to Georgia State last time. Battered Vol Syndrome alive and well. Hopefully this season we can beat a few of the so called "powder puff" teams. I will believe it when I see it though.

Before I die, I’d like to see a team that DOMINATES lesser foes especially on the line of scrimmage.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

Unless the rule recently changed an initial counter is an initial counter regardless of whether he came to the school as a new freshman, grad transfer, walk on, or transfer. If you can find anything that says otherwise, let me know. I can't. Nobody gets that slot. It's gone. If you have over 85 players, the transfer doesn't hurt as much, but a team like Tennessee with low numbers is unable to recover to 85 scholarships.

UT lost a bunch of players to transfer, so the 85 limit means nothing for a few years, but the cap at 25 is a big deal. If we sign 25 players this year and 10 of them transfer to WVa next year, we don't get to recoup those scholarships. Our 2021 class will be 15 players moving forward now and forever.. Meanwhile, WVa spent out of their 25 scholarships for next year. Net effect between the two teams is ten fewer players on scholarship during this two years. We don't get to replace those guys who were basically initial qualifiers twice.

This isn't the most corrupt thing in college sports, but it does reduce the total number of players on scholarship. There are lots of moving parts on the total impact, but it is negative in terms of total players on scholarship.

Well to your first point, a walk-on does not count as an initial counter. They aren't taking a scholarship, so they do not count against the 25. They also do not count as an initial counter once being put on scholarship. From a rules standpoint, I'm not sure if this is an oversight or intentional, but you could logistically take 20 walk-ons as freshmen and give them all scholarships as sophomores assuming you're under the 85.

To your second point, yes, we do get to recoup those scholarships. Regardless of transfer numbers, you still get 85 scholarships. If 10 of them leave, you now have 10 opens spots. You can take a larger class (obviously only up to 25, but 25 x 5 is 125, so unless you're constantly facing mass attrition, you shouldn't be too far under 85 even with transfers). You can also give scholarships to your walk-ons which was the end point to my original response. I don't view it as a problem because it likely means more scholarships go to walk-ons than to lower end high school kids, and that's a good thing in my opinion.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

Sure it can. If a player transfer to a new school, the new school would give 1 less to a HS player. This may or may not be able to be made up at the old school. If it was already going to be able to extend 25 scholarships before the transfer happened, it cannot give 26 even though there is room under 85.

Anybody can feel this is not a problem if they want. However, we should expect that as more transfers happen, fewer scholarships will be given out under current rules, and the ones most effected are the low end HS players.

That still doesn't eliminate a scholarship. It may change how schools use those scholarships, which I've admitted multiple times, but it in no way takes away available scholarships at each school. The exact same amount of scholarships are available across the country before and after the changes to the transfer rule.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Well to your first point, a walk-on does not count as an initial counter. They aren't taking a scholarship, so they do not count against the 25. They also do not count as an initial counter once being put on scholarship. From a rules standpoint, I'm not sure if this is an oversight or intentional, but you could logistically take 20 walk-ons as freshmen and give them all scholarships as sophomores assuming you're under the 85.

To your second point, yes, we do get to recoup those scholarships. Regardless of transfer numbers, you still get 85 scholarships. If 10 of them leave, you now have 10 opens spots. You can take a larger class (obviously only up to 25, but 25 x 5 is 125, so unless you're constantly facing mass attrition, you shouldn't be too far under 85 even with transfers). You can also give scholarships to your walk-ons which was the end point to my original response. I don't view it as a problem because it likely means more scholarships go to walk-ons than to lower end high school kids, and that's a good thing in my opinion.

You see the 85 as the limit. I'm looking at building to that number 25 at a time max. That's where transfers cost you.

Walk on don't count, you are right. Until they are give scholarships. The year they are given scholarships, they are an initial counter.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

You see the 85 as the limit. I'm looking at building to that number 25 at a time max. That's where transfers cost you.

Walk on don't count, you are right. Until they are give scholarships. The year they are given scholarships, they are an initial counter.

That is not accurate. My post above was also not completely accurate. Here is the rule:

"Walk-ons who’ve been in school for two full years fill in the margins when a school doesn’t have 85 after fall camp. Those players aren’t initial counters — one of a few workarounds to the rule — and their scholarships don’t have to be renewed."


So as I've stated, no scholarships are being eliminated or destroyed. The exact same amount of 85 scholarships per team are available. The rule will likely result in more of those scholarships going to walk-ons as opposed to high school players (those guys were obviously once high school players as well), and I think that is a good thing.