Hopefully change is coming! [SEC presidents to vote on conference transfers]

#51
#51
Halph66 said:
A coach being fired or leaving isn't fair to players that have committed to a coach. They should be allowed one unrestricted transfer. However, the implications can be disastrous if a coach leaves and so do half your players.

Can other schools contact a player that is currently on scholarship? I thought that they had to enter the transfer portal before they could be contacted or re-recruited?
Click to expand...
Players sign with a school, not a coach...officially. We all know that's a crock but the NCAA has hid behind that for decades.
 
#55
#55
Repeating this from a previous thread, I think the NCAA should change the rule to go ahead and allow a 1 time transfer without penalty except the former team can optionally require the player to sit out games against them if the team losing the player is scheduled to play the gaining team in the season immediately following the transfer. The losing team has provided a scholarship player considerable resources, so they should be able to impose this restriction should they choose to do so. A second transfer should require the player to sit out a year with the only exception being if the team they are on drops the sport or moves to a lower division. I am not sure how this would affect graduate transfers, however. A related thought, a player who is not on scholarship, a walk-on, should be able to transfer any time without penalty since the school is not providing them with significant financial benefits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sccshortstop, rkvdg, MemphisVol77 and 1 other person
#56
#56
Vols4six said:
I agree, coaches can come and go as they please with no penalty.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, there is usually a buyout or payout for a coach to leave (unless terminated, of course). Also speaking that if the said coach is still
Under contract.
 
#57
#57
If allowing the players to transfer without restriction is "the right thing to do" and it is "good for them" ... then should we also not allow the same to not only transfer between schools, but also do so at any point during the season as well? How could blocking them during the season be good for the kids?
 
#58
#58
livefaith said:
If allowing the players to transfer without restriction is "the right thing to do" and it is "good for them" ... then should we also not allow the same to not only transfer between schools, but also do so at any point during the season as well? How could blocking them during the season be good for the kids?
Click to expand...


If you allow mid-season transfers these kids are going to be hunted/hounded like dogs by other schools. "Oh, your coach decided not to start you last week and you're mad about it, well come play for us and we will start you right away". It would become an enormous distraction for the player and the team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodlawn VOL
#60
#60
Most kids don't transfer, having a 1 time transfer without penalty is no big deal to me. But only 1 time. And NO to mid-season transfers, that is entirely different. A player should no before the season starts, plenty of time to figure it out and if something happens mid-year he can transfer after the year. I think people are making a big deal over nothing myself. GBO!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#61
#61
MWAVolfan said:
If you allow mid-season transfers these kids are going to be hunted/hounded like dogs by other schools. "Oh, your coach decided not to start you last week and you're mad about it, well come play for us and we will start you right away". It would become an enormous distraction for the player and the team.
Click to expand...

You cannot contact a player on another team unless they enter the transfer portal. The player would have to make the first move.
 
#62
#62
Boca Vol said:
Players sign with a school, not a coach...officially. We all know that's a crock but the NCAA has hid behind that for decades.
Click to expand...
It's not a blanket for all players, some players do sign for the school, some sign because of a coach but most sign because they like both. It's not the same for all players. GBO!!!!
 
#65
#65
Freak said:
Some have said the vote is Thursday. And I didn't hear it directly, but I read that Kiffin mentioned it also.
Click to expand...
Maybe, who knows though. I stand by original statement that UK needs the QB more than Tennessee needs Cade ( no offense) so in a way I hope its turned down because I do not want UK to get a spark
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top