Fallout from the one-time transfer rule?

[VolinMichigan]

I view it like it’s NFL free agency vs the draft. Some teams build through the draft and some through FA. There are risks for both - drafted players not panning out and over paying FAs relative to on field production.

There are going to be schools that use the transfer portal more than others to fill out their roster. And I think we’ll see more players transferring “down” than up. The smaller schools may lose a good player here and there, but they could also get more players of a higher talent level that they wouldn’t normally get during the HS recruiting process. I really don’t get the hand wringing about this.

 

[sanefan]

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.

Yes, it can. If a school can give 25 scholarships and stay at or under 85, and then a player transfers, they still can only offer 25.

The school the player goes to has to count this transfer as part of its count of 25 or less; this means that school has to offer 1 less HS scholarship.

Since the first school cannot make that up, the net result is one less HS scholarship offered.

 

[butchna]

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.

So Dayne Davis counted against the 20 class? Garland and Solomon against 2019?

 

[BondJamesBond]

So Dayne Davis counted against the 20 class? Garland and Solomon against 2019?

I understood the rule changed within the last couple of years, but I don’t recall exactly when. I have looked for a current statement but can't find one. Players would be initial counters (part of the 25 limit) in their first year under scholarship.

PIC is quoting a 2017 sports page article as "the rule," and maybe it was accurate at that time. It may still be. I can't find anything that defines a current exception to the definition of initial counters, i.e., they are ICs the first year they go on scholarship and which would be counted toward the 25 limit. Fine if I'm wrong, but a 2017 article isn't persuasive. Maybe someone has some real NCAA info?

 

[BondJamesBond]

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."

Actually that is not the rule. That is an article describing the rule in 2017. I would love to see a citation from the NCAA or the SEC or UT saying what the current rule is.

It doesn't bother me if I am misinformed on this, but I'd like to hear what the current rule actually is if I am wrong.

 

[butchna]

I understood the rule changed within the last couple of years, but I don’t recall exactly when. I have looked for a current statement but can't find one. Players would be initial counters (part of the 25 limit) in their first year under scholarship.

PIC is quoting a 2017 sports page article as "the rule," and maybe it was accurate at that time. It may still be. I can't find anything that defines a current exception to the definition of initial counters, i.e., they are ICs the first year they go on scholarship and which would be counted toward the 25 limit. Fine if I'm wrong, but a 2017 article isn't persuasive. Maybe someone has some real NCAA info?

It’s always been the same rule on walk-ons being awarded scholarships. I think they reduced the amount of time required on the roster. But it’s NEVER counted as an initial against the 25 man...and still doesn’t. It’s not a competitive advantage stocking your roster with athletes who have to pay their own way for any length of time.

Per Athleticscholarships.net

Another option is to receive a scholarship later in your career. For many sports, that might mean walking on for a year before receiving an athletic scholarship. In football, the more common scenario is to walk on for two years rather than just one. The reason is after two years, a school can give an athletic scholarship to a walk-on without counting the scholarship against the limit of 25 initial counters, and instead count the scholarship against only the limit of 85 overall counters.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

Yes, it can. If a school can give 25 scholarships and stay at or under 85, and then a player transfers, they still can only offer 25.

The school the player goes to has to count this transfer as part of its count of 25 or less; this means that school has to offer 1 less HS scholarship.

Since the first school cannot make that up, the net result is one less HS scholarship offered.

You're moving the goal posts. I have said repeatedly that some spots that formerly went to high school kids might go to walk-ons. That in no way eliminates scholarships. Every school has 85 to give, and I expect nearly all of them to continue to utilize 85 every single year.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

Actually that is not the rule. That is an article describing the rule in 2017. I would love to see a citation from the NCAA or the SEC or UT saying what the current rule is.

It doesn't bother me if I am misinformed on this, but I'd like to hear what the current rule actually is if I am wrong.

You're right. I was lazy and pulled an interpretation of the policy that was easy to find. @butchna did a much better job of explaining it in his post, but I can assure you that walk-ons being granted scholarships do not count as initial counters. That is why I've said repeatedly that no scholarships are being eliminated or made unavailable. They will just end up being used differently in some cases.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

Actually that is not the rule. That is an article describing the rule in 2017. I would love to see a citation from the NCAA or the SEC or UT saying what the current rule is.

It doesn't bother me if I am misinformed on this, but I'd like to hear what the current rule actually is if I am wrong.

I'm bored at work this morning, so I went the less lazy route. I was correct initially and incorrectly corrected myself:

13.9.3.3.2 Exception -- Agreement After One Year. [FBS] A student-athlete who has been in residence at the certifying institution for at least one academic year may sign a financial aid agreement for the first time without counting toward the annual limit on signings. (Adopted: 4/26/17 effective 8/1/17 for signings that occur on or after 8/1/17, Revised: 4/25/18 effective 8/1/18)

 

[sanefan]

You're moving the goal posts. I have said repeatedly that some spots that formerly went to high school kids might go to walk-ons. That in no way eliminates scholarships. Every school has 85 to give, and I expect nearly all of them to continue to utilize 85 every single year.

You win. I realize IF a walk-on has been with the program 2 years or more then he can get a scholarship and not count against the 25 per year, only the 85 limit. I'm not sure that is a reality but it is possible.

 

[butchna]

You win. I realize IF a walk-on has been with the program 2 years or more then he can get a scholarship and not count against the 25 per year, only the 85 limit. I'm not sure that is a reality but it is possible.

Dayne Davis, Solomon and Garland makes it lean towards reality for me.

 

[kcvols1]

I would love to see the NFL and NBA create an MLB type farm league system and adopt the same draft rules and the MLB.

Why on earth would the NFL make that investment when they’re already reaping the benefits without paying a dime?

 

[Probably_in_Class]

Why on earth would the NFL make that investment when they’re already reaping the benefits without paying a dime?

A lot of MiLB teams are profitable, and some are very profitable. It would depend on a lot of factors, but for example if the Titans had a farm team that played in Neyland on Sundays, I'd be at least mildly interested.