vegasvolfan
Do what you have to until you can do what you want
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 5,091
- Likes
- 4,462
Are you the OG CW?
Either way, here is my response:
Thanks.
Since the transfer portal only comes into play once a year in January, is it correct that programs can still pick up two-year JUCO players during the season or well outside the portal window?
I believe that any sport, activity, discipline, or curriculum a person can dedicate themselves to in an effort to make a living—and to benefit the whole by participating in—demands at least as much respect as earning an academic degree, and sometimes more. The real challenge is identifying where the line is drawn between the benefits afforded to a “scholastic” athlete versus a traditional “scholar.”
To keep the comparison simple: can a scholar transfer mid-semester? If not, should that rule change—and why? If the answer is no, and the reasoning is sound, then equality demands that the same moment of truth be established and enforced across disciplines. If the answer is yes for athletes, then that difference must be justified on principle, not convenience. From what I’ve found, mid-semester academic transfers are technically possible but strongly discouraged and intentionally difficult. If that is the standard for scholars, the same should apply to athletes—provided their discipline is respected at the same level as academics.
What many people overlook is that while college football has had its business “coming-to-Jesus moment,” it is still not the NFL and should not be treated as such. There are still structural wrinkles that need to be ironed out. I do not support collegiate athletes transferring purely for more money. At the same time, I don’t believe an athlete should be forced to sit when another school is willing to start that player and offer equivalent compensation. Even then, that movement—like academic transfers—should be intentionally difficult. One possible solution is requiring the receiving school to reimburse the original institution for its developmental investment.
A major equality issue is compensation itself. Athletes can now receive a scholarship and NIL, while traditional students cannot. I find that imbalance problematic. If a system is going to account for all scenarios, a player should not receive both an academic scholarship and NIL unless they demonstrably excel in both. Likewise, an athlete should not receive an athletic scholarship if their NIL compensation exceeds tuition—particularly when taxpayer money is involved. That overcorrects fairness in favor of athletes at the expense of students.
These considerations help define where the line between student and athlete should reasonably be drawn.
That said, athletics still has a business component that rarely exists in academics outside of grants, research, and similar exceptions.
This brings us back to JUCO—and specifically JUCO eligibility and mid-cycle movement.
There are valid reasons JUCO participation historically has not counted against college eligibility. One of the most important is that JUCO provides a development platform for athletes who mature later—academically, physically, or both—without forcing them into a rigid timeline that doesn’t account for that reality. Per Ainge, this used to be handled differently. Given the current landscape, it deserves reconsideration—especially when viewed through a scholastic lens.
From a business standpoint, this structure already mirrors professional sports development systems. The question is how well that logic aligns with academics.
In many ways, it aligns closely with technical colleges and with baseball’s developmental model. While football has always followed a unique path, applying similar logic could make the pathway to higher-level football more accessible without undermining educational principles. It could also raise the quality of play at the professional level.
My consistent concern has been that athletes often receive academic scholarships and additional benefits not available to students who earn those scholarships purely through academics. With NIL now in place, that line must be clearly defined—and it can be defined—using the principles above. I would be proud if my alma mater adopted such a standard.
At its core, this discussion is about fair, disciplined movement—particularly mid-season JUCO movement—and whether we are willing to apply consistent standards across academics and athletics instead of defaulting to convenience or market pressure.
Each scenario already exists. We’ve simply avoided formally addressing them.
Until we do, we won’t have a system built on fairness, discipline, and developmental reality—we’ll just have a patchwork reacting to pressure.
