|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 23, 2022 11:51:10 GMT -6
Anyone have an actual situation where a player’s offer disappear, or is everything just rumbling at the moment
|
|
|
|
Post by redandwhite on Jan 24, 2022 13:51:03 GMT -6
We had a player get an FCS offer pulled. It's working out for him - he has a Power 5 PWO offer, talking to a couple of other FBS schools and has a couple of FBS offers,
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 24, 2022 13:58:58 GMT -6
We had a player get an FCS offer pulled. It's working out for him - he has a Power 5 PWO offer, talking to a couple of other FBS schools and has a couple of FBS offers, offer for a few weeks from now or next year? |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jan 24, 2022 14:25:18 GMT -6
For all the shadiness and scuzz brought on from the NCAA, there needs to be a governing body enforcing and instituting rules.
I really hope they re-evaluate the transfer portal rules so that a player can only transfer out and PLAY IMMEDIATELY if the HC, coordinator, position coach, or coach that recruited them leaves. This isn't to limit people's freedoms, you want to go to another college, then go, you are free to. But their needs to be a governing body to ensure that this doesnt end up being the wild west.
|
|
|
|
Post by redandwhite on Jan 25, 2022 8:14:42 GMT -6
We had a player get an FCS offer pulled. It's working out for him - he has a Power 5 PWO offer, talking to a couple of other FBS schools and has a couple of FBS offers, offer for a few weeks from now or next year? This cycle - 2022 |
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Jan 25, 2022 8:51:14 GMT -6
Curious for those who are still involved or might follow recruiting: has the transfer portal had any impact directly on one of your current HS kids/ kids you know about? I am not fully up to date, BUT I would think all of the movement has to impact the number of schollies available to give each year. Yes. '21 kid lost a FCS scholarship- they claimed it was a COVID extra-year issue and that they wouldn't have an opening but then turned around and got a transfer at my kid's position. I don't want to be dramatic but it has darn near killed recruiting for kids in our fringe state. We are not a hotbed, and the only kids it hasn't affected is the no-brainer power 5 kids here. Many of the G5 kids from our state are ending up PWO FCS or D2. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jan 26, 2022 14:14:50 GMT -6
This may seem a little far-fetched, but I wonder if a recruit could voluntarily offer a permanent commitment to a school as a means of improving their recruitment.
For example, if Little Johnny signs a contract (or something of this nature) stating he would not play for another school, unless the HC leaves or is fired, would he more likely receive a scholarship. I don't even know what the legal or logistical pitfalls are here, I am just spitballing.
I get that the big issue is that transfer players allow a school to bring in college proven athletes immediately, and be ready to win right away. But if I were a FCS coach and I knew I was gonna have guaranteed multiple years to work with a player, and that said player's guarantee is tied to me keeping my job, I'd be inclined to give him an extra look.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 26, 2022 14:32:44 GMT -6
This may seem a little far-fetched, but I wonder if a recruit could voluntarily offer a permanent commitment to a school as a means of improving their recruitment. For example, if Little Johnny signs a contract (or something of this nature) stating he would not play for another school, unless the HC leaves or is fired, would he more likely receive a scholarship. I don't even know what the legal or logistical pitfalls are here, I am just spitballing. I get that the big issue is that transfer players allow a school to bring in college proven athletes immediately, and be ready to win right away. But if I were a FCS coach and I knew I was gonna have guaranteed multiple years to work with a player, and that said player's guarantee is tied to me keeping my job, I'd be inclined to give him an extra look. To me CONTRACTS are the solution for the transfer portal. 1, 2, 3, 4 year contracts. And the contracts work both ways!! |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 26, 2022 17:44:40 GMT -6
This may seem a little far-fetched, but I wonder if a recruit could voluntarily offer a permanent commitment to a school as a means of improving their recruitment. For example, if Little Johnny signs a contract (or something of this nature) stating he would not play for another school, unless the HC leaves or is fired, would he more likely receive a scholarship. I don't even know what the legal or logistical pitfalls are here, I am just spitballing. I get that the big issue is that transfer players allow a school to bring in college proven athletes immediately, and be ready to win right away. But if I were a FCS coach and I knew I was gonna have guaranteed multiple years to work with a player, and that said player's guarantee is tied to me keeping my job, I'd be inclined to give him an extra look. To me CONTRACTS are the solution for the transfer portal. 1, 2, 3, 4 year contracts. And the contracts work both ways!! Then they are not student athletes but employees. Which is what the NCAA is fighting their hardest to keep from happening. that is the dirty laundry of this issue. Nobody likes to admit it but the vast majority of college football fans don't want student athletes. They want indentured servants. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 26, 2022 21:33:37 GMT -6
To me CONTRACTS are the solution for the transfer portal. 1, 2, 3, 4 year contracts. And the contracts work both ways!! Then they are not student athletes but employees. Which is what the NCAA is fighting their hardest to keep from happening. that is the dirty laundry of this issue. Nobody likes to admit it but the vast majority of college football fans don't want student athletes. They want indentured servants. Let me re-phrase then. Colleges can offer 1, 2, 3 or 4 year scholarships. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jan 26, 2022 23:03:11 GMT -6
To me CONTRACTS are the solution for the transfer portal. 1, 2, 3, 4 year contracts. And the contracts work both ways!! Then they are not student athletes but employees. Which is what the NCAA is fighting their hardest to keep from happening. that is the dirty laundry of this issue. Nobody likes to admit it but the vast majority of college football fans don't want student athletes. They want indentured servants. Signing a contract does not make someone an employee. I think guaranteeing scholarships is a very good thing, and would benefit the athletes. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 27, 2022 5:20:50 GMT -6
Then they are not student athletes but employees. Which is what the NCAA is fighting their hardest to keep from happening. that is the dirty laundry of this issue. Nobody likes to admit it but the vast majority of college football fans don't want student athletes. They want indentured servants. Signing a contract does not make someone an employee. I think guaranteeing scholarships is a very good thing, and would benefit the athletes. . While not the common practice, I am pretty sure this was discussed by athletes and the ncaa and already happens in some places Regarding contracts- I disagree based on the context that Silky was using (“goes both ways”). While we know that scholarships are technically renewable yearly, in practice the vast majority are not going to be revoked if the athlete is doing their part - even if performance is lacking. I read Silky’s post to mean an agreement such as : “ Notre Dame will offer Johnny a scholarship guaranteed for 4 years- but that means Johnny can ONLY attend ND for those 4 years. |
|
|
|
Post by jgordon1 on Jan 27, 2022 10:30:03 GMT -6
I think the project type players will be offered a preferred walk on and schools will have NIL deals in place to cover their education and to give them some money. I know Tennessee recently done this with a local player that suffered an injury and had his offer pulled from another school. Yes this is also happening. I’ve seen it work with pulling up naia/D2 etc kids though as well. Give them PWO and NIL deal to cover cost. You don’t want FBS expanding their roster it will hurt lower levels because D1 will horde players. Like Nebraska in the 90s. They already have ways to get around the max roster limit with red/gray/blue shirts etc. Don't make it worse. Yes I think BYU gave every walk on a scholarship |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 27, 2022 11:37:10 GMT -6
Signing a contract does not make someone an employee. I think guaranteeing scholarships is a very good thing, and would benefit the athletes. . While not the common practice, I am pretty sure this was discussed by athletes and the ncaa and already happens in some places Regarding contracts- I disagree based on the context that Silky was using (“goes both ways”). While we know that scholarships are technically renewable yearly, in practice the vast majority are not going to be revoked if the athlete is doing their part - even if performance is lacking. I read Silky’s post to mean an agreement such as : “ Notre Dame will offer Johnny a scholarship guaranteed for 4 years- but that means Johnny can ONLY attend ND for those 4 years. You read me correctly. But Johnny could negotiate and say I only want a 2 year contract. Or ND could just offer a 1 year contract, etc. But like current contracts, if both parties agree, they can be broken. If both parties don't agree and the college breaks the contract, they lose that scholarship to offer. If the player breaks it, then he just has to sit a year when he transfers. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 27, 2022 17:40:08 GMT -6
. While not the common practice, I am pretty sure this was discussed by athletes and the ncaa and already happens in some places Regarding contracts- I disagree based on the context that Silky was using (“goes both ways”). While we know that scholarships are technically renewable yearly, in practice the vast majority are not going to be revoked if the athlete is doing their part - even if performance is lacking. I read Silky’s post to mean an agreement such as : “ Notre Dame will offer Johnny a scholarship guaranteed for 4 years- but that means Johnny can ONLY attend ND for those 4 years. You read me correctly. But Johnny could negotiate and say I only want a 2 year contract. Or ND could just offer a 1 year contract, etc. But like current contracts, if both parties agree, they can be broken. If both parties don't agree and the college breaks the contract, they lose that scholarship to offer. If the player breaks it, then he just has to sit a year when he transfers. That sounds an awful lot like employment with non compete clauses. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 27, 2022 20:03:44 GMT -6
You read me correctly. But Johnny could negotiate and say I only want a 2 year contract. Or ND could just offer a 1 year contract, etc. But like current contracts, if both parties agree, they can be broken. If both parties don't agree and the college breaks the contract, they lose that scholarship to offer. If the player breaks it, then he just has to sit a year when he transfers. That sounds an awful lot like employment with non compete clauses. But isn't it still better than what it was like just two years ago? What about guys who transfer after one year now? They are stuck for three years. Under what I am proposing, you could sign 1 year deals for 4 different teams. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 27, 2022 20:33:44 GMT -6
That sounds an awful lot like employment with non compete clauses. But isn't it still better than what it was like just two years ago? What about guys who transfer after one year now? They are stuck for three years. Under what I am proposing, you could sign 1 year deals for 4 different teams. No, they can still transfer again, just have to sit a year. I am not saying which is better (or worse) for the athletes or the universities, as that doesn't matter to my underlying point: the Universities and NCAA are going to do nearly anything in their power to avoid situations highlighting the reality that when it comes to Football and Men's basketball- the athletes really are employees. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 27, 2022 20:38:35 GMT -6
]No, they can still transfer again, just have to sit a year Which they can do when they "break" the contract. Not sure where you are going here. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 27, 2022 20:45:16 GMT -6
]No, they can still transfer again, just have to sit a year Which they can do when they "break" the contract. Not sure where you are going here. You keep proposing situations such that it is undeniably an employer/employee relationship. I understand what you are proposing, but I think such a situation would result in further issues regarding the employment status of student athletes. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 27, 2022 21:22:09 GMT -6
Which they can do when they "break" the contract. Not sure where you are going here. You keep proposing situations such that it is undeniably an employer/employee relationship. I understand what you are proposing, but I think such a situation would result in further issues regarding the employment status of student athletes. Ok. It is an employer/employee relationship. That is what it is anyways. And ummmmmmm..... NIL deals??? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 27, 2022 21:33:26 GMT -6
You keep proposing situations such that it is undeniably an employer/employee relationship. I understand what you are proposing, but I think such a situation would result in further issues regarding the employment status of student athletes. Ok. It is an employer/employee relationship. That is what it is anyways. And ummmmmmm..... NIL deals??? Are based on Name, Image and Likeness, which is different than being an employee. The NCAA and Universities have fought for decades to project the facade of "student athlete" The term itself was coined about 58 years ago to avoid worker's compensation payments to players. The NCAA will do anything possible to avoid circumstances that can be used as evidence that Div 1 Men's Basketball and Football players are employees. |
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Jan 27, 2022 22:08:04 GMT -6
Ok. It is an employer/employee relationship. That is what it is anyways. And ummmmmmm..... NIL deals??? Are based on Name, Image and Likeness, which is different than being an employee. The NCAA and Universities have fought for decades to project the facade of "student athlete" The term itself was coined about 58 years ago to avoid worker's compensation payments to players. The NCAA will do anything possible to avoid circumstances that can be used as evidence that Div 1 Men's Basketball and Football players are employees. So i guess i am naive, how is signing a contract to have a two year guaranteed scholarship any more of an employee/employer relationship than having a single year scholarship? Fwiw, i wouldnt say a contract should prohibit Johnny from going to any other school as was implied- rather that they wouldnt play ball for any other school for one season. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 27, 2022 22:48:09 GMT -6
In the long run is this actually a real problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 28, 2022 6:29:33 GMT -6
In the long run is this actually a real problem? I think in the long run, it will all sort out. But it is KILLING the 2022 class. Will most likely hurt the next two classes also. In a few years, the kids with the extra covid years will be gone. In a few years, a lot of kids will have already used their free transfer. But right now, most all current college players have those TWO items in their pocket, so 2022 kids are really messed up. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 28, 2022 10:17:11 GMT -6
In the long run is this actually a real problem? I think in the long run, it will all sort out. But it is KILLING the 2022 class. Will most likely hurt the next two classes also. In a few years, the kids with the extra covid years will be gone. In a few years, a lot of kids will have already used their free transfer. But right now, most all current college players have those TWO items in their pocket, so 2022 kids are really messed up. I understand that and I'd be angry too if I was still in the game. The real issue isn't the transfers. It's the covid eligibility rules. I think that all of us saw that there was going to be a problem when they gave everybody an extra year of eligibility without increasing scholarship limits. I don't know what to do about it and obviously neither does anybody at the NCAA. I don't think that they shoulkd make big long-term changes for a temporary problem. |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jan 28, 2022 13:41:43 GMT -6
I think in the long run, it will all sort out. But it is KILLING the 2022 class. Will most likely hurt the next two classes also. In a few years, the kids with the extra covid years will be gone. In a few years, a lot of kids will have already used their free transfer. But right now, most all current college players have those TWO items in their pocket, so 2022 kids are really messed up. I understand that and I'd be angry too if I was still in the game. The real issue isn't the transfers. It's the covid eligibility rules. I think that all of us saw that there was going to be a problem when they gave everybody an extra year of eligibility without increasing scholarship limits. I don't know what to do about it and obviously neither does anybody at the NCAA. I don't think that they shoulkd make big long-term changes for a temporary problem. The answer is easy. Add 5 (or whatever) scholarships that have to go to incoming freshman this year. 4 the next. 3 the next, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by coachlit on Jan 29, 2022 9:12:25 GMT -6
I’ve asked every college recruiter that’s come my way and they all tell me it’s affecting how they recruit. Now only do they have to recruit the HS students, but they have to recruit their own players and use resources to look at and recruit the portal. It’s definitely hurting the high school athlete.
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 30, 2023 13:29:12 GMT -6
This may seem a little far-fetched, but I wonder if a recruit could voluntarily offer a permanent commitment to a school as a means of improving their recruitment. For example, if Little Johnny signs a contract (or something of this nature) stating he would not play for another school, unless the HC leaves or is fired, would he more likely receive a scholarship. I don't even know what the legal or logistical pitfalls are here, I am just spitballing. I get that the big issue is that transfer players allow a school to bring in college proven athletes immediately, and be ready to win right away. But if I were a FCS coach and I knew I was gonna have guaranteed multiple years to work with a player, and that said player's guarantee is tied to me keeping my job, I'd be inclined to give him an extra look. To me CONTRACTS are the solution for the transfer portal. 1, 2, 3, 4 year contracts. And the contracts work both ways!! |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 30, 2023 21:13:39 GMT -6
When I saw the article, I knew you would be posting LOL. Seems to me like Mike Gundy needs to stick to football coaching, as he has zero concept of labor relations/labor laws, their potential affects on the collegiate football landscape and the current climate in the court system (particularly the Supreme Court) towards the NCAA. Would that idea alleviate new issues that coaches and programs are experiencing ? Yes. The problem here is that Gundy’s suggestion is ignoring the BIGGEST issue that the NCAA as a whole is dealing with— the crumbling facade of the “student athlete”. His thoughts on the matter essentially solidify what the NCAA member institutions (and NCAA itself) have denied for decades- that those athletes are employees. That would have far greater issues than the current ones in the grander scheme of things Just as an interesting aside, don’t the coaches currently have contracts that seem to matter quite little with regards to their movement? |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Mar 31, 2023 6:36:20 GMT -6
When I saw the article, I knew you would be posting LOL. Seems to me like Mike Gundy needs to stick to football coaching, as he has zero concept of labor relations/labor laws, their potential affects on the collegiate football landscape and the current climate in the court system (particularly the Supreme Court) towards the NCAA. Would that idea alleviate new issues that coaches and programs are experiencing ? Yes. The problem here is that Gundy’s suggestion is ignoring the BIGGEST issue that the NCAA as a whole is dealing with— the crumbling facade of the “student athlete”. His thoughts on the matter essentially solidify what the NCAA member institutions (and NCAA itself) have denied for decades- that those athletes are employees. That would have far greater issues than the current ones in the grander scheme of things Just as an interesting aside, don’t the coaches currently have contracts that seem to matter quite little with regards to their movement? Contracts always have escape clauses, buyouts, etc. I am sure the coaches and schools are abiding by those or lawsuits will happen or the lawsuit isn’t worth it and they drop the matter. |
|
