(08-16-2013 03:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Stipend is nice but if you are playing 30 minutes a game at NAU are you doing yourself any favors transferring to Arizona State to play 18-20 minutes a game?

You are making the assumption that no one at NAU could be a starter at ASU - and you would be wrong.

(08-16-2013 04:52 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 03:41 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 03:25 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-15-2013 10:23 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  What if Division 4 gets rid of equivalency and goes strictly full head count for every sport in every school in this new division? The stipend would then be added to all sports. I think they might.

Now consider this new Division 4 allowing athletes to transfer from lower divisions without losing any eligibility. Imagine the ramifications.

If you were in this Division 4, and your conference network will be showing Olympic sports year round, why would they not do this? This would give all such schools a huge advantage in the Olympic sports, which would lead to greater chances for success and better ratings.

Return on investment.

Making every sport head count would cost much more than the stipend and would hit the Big 10 and Pac-12 much harder than say the SEC.

Free transfer really wouldn't be that big of a deal. Very rarely when a player transfers from a G5 to P5 does it work out well, almost invariably the player ends getting fewer minutes. One of the few exceptions was Bo Wallace leaving Arkansas State and landing at Ole Miss because he just wasn't good enough to start at Arkansas State, and the guy who told him that was Hugh Freeze. Most are like Brandon Reed who was Sun Belt freshman of the year at Arkansas State and received significantly fewer minutes at Georgia Tech (and is transferring back to ASU for his senior season).

Obviously there are some who could switch a do well (Chuckie Keaton comes to mind) but as a general rule the kid playing 40 snaps at Western Kentucky is probably going to be doing well to get 30 at UK simply because UK has better depth and can better afford to rest him.

It could work, we just don't know because so few players transfer now and sit a year.

NAU over the years has signed a few blue-chippers (as has many FCS schools) that P5 schools shied away from because of injury concern in HS. So when those players explode in college, and there was still open recruiting on them from P5 schools, imagine the chaos.

Take Michael Roos, 1st rounder all-pro from Eastern Washington. Lightly recruited out of HS, by his junior year considered one of the top linemen in the country. He could have started at ANY school - Alabama, Washington, USC, etc. For the p5 to have the ability to snatch these players by offering huge stipends would severely damage college sports as a whole.

I think you are exaggerating a bit with that last remark.

Besides, how about what is best for the player?

Not really - this proposal is unlimited free agency. Even the pros don't have that.

I'd rather compete with them directly at a disadvantage than voluntarily become their minor league.

(08-16-2013 04:53 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-16-2013 03:58 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Stipend is nice but if you are playing 30 minutes a game at NAU are you doing yourself any favors transferring to Arizona State to play 18-20 minutes a game?

You are making the assumption that no one at NAU could be a starter at ASU - and you would be wrong.

You are looking for a reason to wad your panties without justification.

I dare you to go look at the kids who transfer away from the rest of the world to the "name" schools. In virtually all cases they get fewer minutes. You want to be insulted go for it but the name schools will almost always have superior depth and in turn give very good players fewervminutes. Or you can just assume I insulted NAU.

(08-15-2013 10:23 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  What if Division 4 gets rid of equivalency and goes strictly full head count for every sport in every school in this new division? The stipend would then be added to all sports. I think they might.

Now consider this new Division 4 allowing athletes to transfer from lower divisions without losing any eligibility. Imagine the ramifications.

If you were in this Division 4, and your conference network will be showing Olympic sports year round, why would they not do this? This would give all such schools a huge advantage in the Olympic sports, which would lead to greater chances for success and better ratings.

Do you know how many scholarships would have to be added if you made equivalency sports into head-count sports?

Take baseball as an example. A team that is spreading 11.7 scholarships among 27 players would have to offer 27 head-count scholarships? Even if it was, say, 20 scholarship players and 7-plus walkons, that's a big increase in the annual expenditure for one sport. To apply that across every equivalency sport -- that is, every sport except football, men's hoops, women's hoops, women's volleyball, women's tennis, and women's gymnastics -- would mean adding 40-80 scholarships per year depending on how many sports the school offers.

It would be great for athletes and it would be the right thing to do, but the ADs only want to pose for pictures with those "non-revenue" athletes when they win titles or All-American honors. The ADs don't want to find the money to give those athletes full scholarships.

Here's the list of equivalency sports, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_I_...s_by_sport

Lurker, I think it's pretty obvious that the G5 would benefit more than the P5 if players could transfer without sitting out, don't think you thought that one through.