The Transfer Portal Problem

#1

SNAFU

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2011
Messages
425
Likes
883
#1
Since 10/1/2020, Tennessee has lost the most scholarship players to the portal (25) than any other D1 school. Next closest are Kansas and Michigan St with 22. Closest SEC teams are MS St and MO (20), followed by Auburn and Vandy at 19. There’s no limit to how many players a program could lose to the transfer portal in one offseason. There remains a strict limit on how many signees these programs can add to make up for what they’ve lost and that's 25 scholarship players.

“They’ve opened the output valve and made it easier for kids to leave. But they haven’t opened the input valve,” Wake Forest coach Dave Clawson said. “If you’re going to lose nine, 10, 11 kids per year, how are you possibly going to have a full roster ever again once we get back to 85?”- The Athletic
 
#3
Joined
Dec 5, 2013
Messages
2,301
Likes
4,376
#3
Part of the attrition at TN this year was that 7 players were "asked" to leave after the Pruitt "Money Bag" issue. Those were some of our best players but part of them did not hurt as much as others.

The issue of more leaving then you are allowed to bring in is one that will have to be addressed.
 
#5
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
2,534
Likes
5,602
#5
That is a problem for sure but if you do not count these transfers to 25 limit then schools like GA & Bama will force their under-performing players to transfer each year and upgrade them with best players from other schools. This will be really bad for players. It does need some thoughtful solution.
Just a quick thought (that I haven't thought through) what if the NCAA would allow teams to sign more high school recruits to make the 85 limit if they are under the limit that year related to transfers? This would give high school players more opportunities to get into college etc... Not sure it could work, but a quick thought.
 
#6

Otis1105

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2017
Messages
318
Likes
347
#6
It will make identifying high quality PWOs very important. Maybe convincing 3 stars to come a year and earn a scholarship. There will be scholarships available and you will be able to backfill them with kids already on your roster. Also, never give a kicker or punter a scholarship. fill up all 25 each cycle with players and when a portal player defects, give him that open scholarship
 
#8

Otis1105

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2017
Messages
318
Likes
347
#8
Just a quick thought (that I haven't thought through) what if the NCAA would allow teams to sign more high school recruits to make the 85 limit if they are under the limit that year related to transfers? This would give high school players more opportunities to get into college etc... Not sure it could work, but a quick thought.
Then you sign 35 in one class. 15-20 don’t dent the 2 deep, so they portal out and you have to take even more the next year.
 
#11

peaygolf

Let's Go Peay!!!!
Joined
Nov 30, 2017
Messages
8,406
Likes
18,452
#11
Part of the attrition at TN this year was that 7 players were "asked" to leave after the Pruitt "Money Bag" issue. Those were some of our best players but part of them did not hurt as much as others.

The issue of more leaving then you are allowed to bring in is one that will have to be addressed.
Honest question.
Is that fact or conjecture?
 
#12

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
42,715
Likes
28,323
#12
I disagree with this. That would entice coaches to take more chances with questionable recruits.
How so? You still lose the time invested and have to take another risk on a replacement.

How would you resolve this problem? As Clawson points out, it won't work and especially for teams trying to build to competitiveness when they go back to the 85 scholarship limit. There is a risk that this rule would institute a permanent upper and under class in CFB.

If a coach drops a kid because he doesn't think he's good enough then that should cost the coach/program. But it shouldn't penalize a team if the player leaves of their own accord or are dismissed for behavior.
 
#13

hog88

Slice don't pay
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
79,124
Likes
80,053
#13
How so? You still lose the time invested and have to take another risk on a replacement.

How would you resolve this problem? As Clawson points out, it won't work and especially for teams trying to build to competitiveness when they go back to the 85 scholarship limit. There is a risk that this rule would institute a permanent upper and under class in CFB.

If a coach drops a kid because he doesn't think he's good enough then that should cost the coach/program. But it shouldn't penalize a team if the player leaves of their own accord or are dismissed for behavior.
Allowing a program to get a "free replacement" out of the portal for a player dismissed from the team for whatever reason allows the coaching staff to take bigger risks. Why wouldn't they?

My solution as I posted earlier would be to allow a 1 for 1 on players in good standing transferring. You lose 1 to transfer you can pick up his replacement through the portal without it affecting your 25 signing limit. Players dismissed wouldn't get the the 1 for 1 exemption so taking risks on questionable guys would be penalized.
 
Likes: Big Al Orange
#14

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
42,715
Likes
28,323
#14
Allowing a program to get a "free replacement" out of the portal for a player dismissed from the team for whatever reason allows the coaching staff to take bigger risks. Why wouldn't they?
Because it wastes time and resources just the same. If you don't do it then you either deal with a short roster or cover up problems even more so than now.

My solution as I posted earlier would be to allow a 1 for 1 on players in good standing transferring. You lose 1 to transfer you can pick up his replacement through the portal without it affecting your 25 signing limit. Players dismissed wouldn't get the the 1 for 1 exemption so taking risks on questionable guys would be penalized.
Sounds good but I'm not sure how that eliminates the incentive you mentioned earlier. There would still be an incentive to take risky players out of the portal. And it does little to nothing toward resolving the migration of talent away from programs trying to rise to programs that are established.

There seems to be more problems with this new rule than most expected- including me. There won't be a perfect solution to this problem but it needs to be better than it is.
 
#19
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
11,905
Likes
8,731
#19
So you are saying that PWO's are good replacements for scholarship players to help your program compete?
No. I am saying you do what you can to get warm bodies to fill out your roster. And hope like Hell it yields something good. But your idea for "allowances" is throwing a bone for schools that need to learn the concept of evaluation. If they can't make grades or have discipline issues, you should have figured that out before you signed those guys.
 
#20

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
42,715
Likes
28,323
#20
No. I am saying you do what you can to get warm bodies to fill out your roster. And hope like Hell it yields something good. But your idea for "allowances" is throwing a bone for schools that need to learn the concept of evaluation. If they can't make grades or have discipline issues, you should have figured that out before you signed those guys.
Surely you aren't that naive. EVERY program recruits players with risks. Most are managed and behave themselves. Some don't.
 
#22

sjt18

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
42,715
Likes
28,323
#22
Then you better not suck at managing them. If you can't? It's your problem. Don't ask for sympathy or allowances. That just allows the stupidity to continue.
No. If they don't resolve this problem before going back to the 85 scholarship limit... it will assure that programs at the bottom never rise.... and those at the top never fall. Programs like Bama can take the high risk players, boot them, then replace them with someone who has proven themselves at another school.

Everyone else gets to hope that PWO's can beat 5* players.
 
#23
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
11,905
Likes
8,731
#23
No. If they don't resolve this problem before going back to the 85 scholarship limit... it will assure that programs at the bottom never rise.... and those at the top never fall. Programs like Bama can take the high risk players, boot them, then replace them with someone who has proven themselves at another school.

Everyone else gets to hope that PWO's can beat 5* players.
You know what is asinine about your statement? If Tennessee were one of the dominate teams in the SEC, you would be taking my side of the argument a helluva lot harder than I am. The one and only reason you are calling for allowances is you think Tennessee needs them right now. You are trying to justify allowances to reward incompetence. It is pathetic.
 

VN Store


Sponsors
 

Top