Chris Dunkley

[Bull94]

Like it was said before it's an NCAA rule that athletes that transfer from one school to another in the same division (D1), must sit out a year. There are ways to work around it but it's hard to convince the NCAA, say if you have a dying family member and you transfer to a school closer to home. If they didn't have his rule kids would be transferring all the time to title contending programs. The not transferring to schools in the same state or to schools that are on the schedule are conditions that the university will use to keep the kid from hurting them in the future.

I actually think it would hurt title contending schools.

they would lose depth when players leave for a chance to play elsewhere.

stars would stay where they are knowing that they can get to the next level without transferring to a new school and risk losing their job or playing in a different system that doesn't showcase their talents.

student athletes are treated like crap. a coach can leave a school just before going on probation in order to take a new job that pays millions but a kid can't transfer without sitting out a year in order to get more playing time. that's completely unfair to the kids that drive this billion dollar business.

No, it's completely fair, the reason stated above. The only reason you don't think it's fair is because 'you' want him to play right away this upcoming year for your team that really needs help at WR. If he was transferring to let's say UCF and didn't have to sit out, then it would be an injustice to the sport. The rule is fine.

apparently you didn't bother reading my response. I believe it would hurt contending teams. not help them. they would lose out on their depth. stars wouldn't bother transferring. why take the risks? they are already stars. their object is to get to the NFL.

BTW, I couldn't care less how it affected programs including ours. they make millions off of free labor. I've never heard of the guy so I don't care whether or not he plays next year. nor would I care if he chose to go to UCF.

the fact is student athletes(especially revenue producing student athletes) are treated like cattle. all while coaches and ADs are treated like kings.

[Bull94]

it's odd that people think it's o.k. when a coach like Saban essentially cuts players every year ( medical hardships, forced transfers, non renewals) to make room for new and improved recruits but they believe a kid that wants to change programs in order to have a chance to play must sit out a year. People site the 1 year scholarship that needs to be renewed every year by the coach but when it comes to the player, he is committed and must sit a year if he transfers.

it would not be the end of college football if they let kids transfer. sure it might hurt the big programs because they would lose out on their depth but the world wouldn't end to throw these kids a bone.

[Bull Dozer]

I think the big problem with not sitting out after a transfer would be under the table deals that could be worked out by the powerhouse programs.  I can easily see schemes of "We don't have room for you this year due to limited schollys but go to school X for a year get your workouts in with a college strength coach, some practices in, and some college class experience and transfer over after the season".  I Think the rule could use some tweaking (coaches bailing on players, easier to obtain hardships, transfers after 3rd year on campus with no penalty) but no sitting out could open up the door for some real shady workings. 

[Bull94]

I think the big problem with not sitting out after a transfer would be under the table deals that could be worked out by the powerhouse programs.  I can easily see schemes of "We don't have room for you this year due to limited schollys but go to school X for a year get your workouts in with a college strength coach, some practices in, and some college class experience and transfer over after the season".  I Think the rule could use some tweaking (coaches bailing on players, easier to obtain hardships, transfers after 3rd year on campus with no penalty) but no sitting out could open up the door for some real shady workings. 

if a kid is not good enough for a big time program to take in year 1, what makes you think they will be good enough to take the next year?

transfers  have benefited USF more than they have hurt us.

in fact it's a trickle down effect.

transfers-in come from larger more established programs while transfers-out go to smaller less established ones. this hurts those at the top and helps everyone down the line. the big programs don't want this at all. their depth advantage would be eaten away.

[smazza]

great transfer

[crambone]

Hope he can hack it here.  I'd love to have his talent on the field but I also don't want our APR taking a swan dive.

[clevername]

Helps the big schools too.

It frees up a schollie for them to use on another five star kid, and removes a player that wasn't fitting their system. The one year is just to prevent recruitment and movement of players already attending a school.

[Bull Dozer]

I think the big problem with not sitting out after a transfer would be under the table deals that could be worked out by the powerhouse programs.  I can easily see schemes of "We don't have room for you this year due to limited schollys but go to school X for a year get your workouts in with a college strength coach, some practices in, and some college class experience and transfer over after the season".  I Think the rule could use some tweaking (coaches bailing on players, easier to obtain hardships, transfers after 3rd year on campus with no penalty) but no sitting out could open up the door for some real shady workings. 

if a kid is not good enough for a big time program to take in year 1, what makes you think they will be good enough to take the next year?

transfers   have benefited USF more than they have hurt us.

in fact it's a trickle down effect.

transfers-in come from larger more established programs while transfers-out go to smaller less established ones. this hurts those at the top and helps everyone down the line. the big programs don't want this at all. their depth advantage would be eaten away.

A kid may not be good enough to squeeze into a class of 14 but you would easily take him in a larger class, pretty much this would be like grey shirting but you are getting another school to fit the bill for that first year for the kid.  Recruiting after all is a numbers game.  If you don't think the big schools wouldn't try to do things like this you're pretty naive.   Also this would lead to a shady underworld of post signing recruiting where kids are still being recruited after they sign their LOI.  Getting rid of the sitting out rule would do nothing but hurt lesser established programs.  It only amplifies the advantages the powerhouse programs already have.     

[Bull94]

Helps the big schools too.

It frees up a schollie for them to use on another five star kid, and removes a player that wasn't fitting their system. The one year is just to prevent recruitment and movement of players already attending a school.

I have no problem if recruiting kids already at a school is  illegal.

big schools like alabama essentially cut the kids they don't want anyway.

still frees up the schollie rght away.

medical hardships(saban loves these) and forced transfers are a part of his schtick. it gives the unscrupulous coaches a distinct advantage. he uses these 7-10 times per year. check out les miles. he learned from his mentor.

[Bull94]

I think the big problem with not sitting out after a transfer would be under the table deals that could be worked out by the powerhouse programs.  I can easily see schemes of "We don't have room for you this year due to limited schollys but go to school X for a year get your workouts in with a college strength coach, some practices in, and some college class experience and transfer over after the season".  I Think the rule could use some tweaking (coaches bailing on players, easier to obtain hardships, transfers after 3rd year on campus with no penalty) but no sitting out could open up the door for some real shady workings. 

if a kid is not good enough for a big time program to take in year 1, what makes you think they will be good enough to take the next year?

transfers   have benefited USF more than they have hurt us.

in fact it's a trickle down effect.

transfers-in come from larger more established programs while transfers-out go to smaller less established ones. this hurts those at the top and helps everyone down the line. the big programs don't want this at all. their depth advantage would be eaten away.

A kid may not be good enough to squeeze into a class of 14 but you would easily take him in a larger class, pretty much this would be like grey shirting but you are getting another school to fit the bill for that first year for the kid.  Recruiting after all is a numbers game.  If you don't think the big schools wouldn't try to do things like this you're pretty naive.   Also this would lead to a shady underworld of post signing recruiting where kids are still being recruited after they sign their LOI.  Getting rid of the sitting out rule would do nothing but hurt lesser established programs.  It only amplifies the advantages the powerhouse programs already have.     

who signs only 14 kids?

can't they just place them at a div 2 school now?

aren't they free to transfer back up without sitting out a year?

don't they place them at prep schools now?

kids transfer down for playing purposes. can you name 1 instance where a kid transferred up to a better program? it doesn't happen.

The big programs that want to protect their depth are happy that you guys buy into this.

they don't want rule changes that would negatively effect their stranglehold on major college football.

reducing scholarships to 85 hurt major programs just like allowing transfers(like they do in every sport but basketball and football) to play right away would hurt them.