The P5 proposal to guarantee scholarships for four years instead of one passed, but there was clearly substantial disagreement within the P5 on this issue. Left unchanged are rules governing transfers, even though I believe there is some connection between these two issues. I don't believe the debate is over.

Surprisingly, there was as much opposition to the guaranteed scholarships from the student representatives on this Council. They raised some interesting points. I would propose a change to both rules to address some of these concerns.

I would make all scholarship grants guaranteed for two years. However, the athlete would have the right to opt out after the first year unless the school extends the guarantee by an additional year by March 31 each year. If they fail to do so, the athlete may transfer to any school he wishes. If he chooses not to transfer, the school must honor his scholarship for the following year (including summer school), and count him against their scholarship limit of 85 players (or 13 for basketball). Someone who is cut when he only needs one more year to graduate might well choose this option.

If he chooses instead to transfer, he must still sit out a year, during which he counts against his former school's scholarship limit but not his new school's (even though the new school is now paying for the scholarship). However, the year that he must sit out pauses the five year clock, meaning he does not lose that year of eligibility. In effect, he now has six years to use his four seasons of eligibility. He can only press this pause button one time. In no case can he play after six years.

If a player who has received the required guarantee by the school opts to transfer on his own, then the current transfer rules still apply.

Now, the school which has recruited him as a transfer must not only count him against their scholarship limit in the year he first becomes eligible, but they also must count him against the maximum number of scholarships they can award for that single year. I'm not sure what the current rule is on this latter point when it comes to JUCO transfers, but if it doesn't already do so, I would treat them like D-I transfers.

This compromise serves to protect the athlete to a significant degree while still holding the initial school and coach accountable for its recruiting mistakes. It doesn't require any change in scholarship limits.

Transfer rules are not within the jurisdiction of autonomy.

"Guaranteed" scholarships is nothing but window dressing. It is meant to give the appearance of change when nothing is really changing. I see some FCS folks predicting some vast conspiracy to send half of FBS to join the FCS ranks but that isn't going to happen and isn't the intention. The bar to play FBS will be raised a little and if the FCS programs don't step up they will see a decrease in talent available. You won't see anymore kids transferring to an FCS or signing with them in the first place if there is ANY program willing to take them in FBS. The lone exception will be the kids with one year left to play and if they graduate they will be off to another FBS as well.

Kids will still be "gently" pushed out to make room for signees but they will be more willing to sit a year and play 1-3 years when it means they get $5K versus nothing.

The G5 is going to follow suit as they did the first time around before autonomy became necessary. The big question is whether those who opposed stipends before autonomy will change their tune now that stipends are real and will have an impact. You think Wichita State will stay in their league if they can't pay stipends to basketball players but UTSA can pay?

(01-20-2015 02:09 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Transfer rules are not within the jurisdiction of autonomy.

Correct, for at least two years. If transfer rules aren't addressed by the entirety of D1, it could become an area for autonomous rules.

(01-20-2015 02:54 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:09 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Transfer rules are not within the jurisdiction of autonomy.

Correct, for at least two years. If transfer rules aren't addressed by the entirety of D1, it could become an area for autonomous rules.

Yeah but we would be back at that whole game of chicken again. "Give us transfer rule autonomy or we will form our own league" threats all over again. I don't see them going down that road again for transfer rules when they already got what they really wanted. Changing transfer rules changes the competitive balance far more than the rules regarding providing extra benefits.

You probably would even have more pushback within the P5 if it was proposed. Vanderbilt does not want Alabama to have the ability to carry even more athletes on the football team.

(01-20-2015 02:59 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:54 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:09 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Transfer rules are not within the jurisdiction of autonomy.

Correct, for at least two years. If transfer rules aren't addressed by the entirety of D1, it could become an area for autonomous rules.

Yeah but we would be back at that whole game of chicken again. "Give us transfer rule autonomy or we will form our own league" threats all over again. I don't see them going down that road again for transfer rules when they already got what they really wanted. Changing transfer rules changes the competitive balance far more than the rules regarding providing extra benefits.

You probably would even have more pushback within the P5 if it was proposed. Vanderbilt does not want Alabama to have the ability to carry even more athletes on the football team.

This is where will we see the split between the upper 20-30% of FBS and the rest. Most don't want to go back to the days of Nebraska, Texas etc having 115-130 kids on scholly, or the big schools being able to poach star players penalty free.

That is why you won't see that 20% split off. Even if the top 40 left, that means that 20 of those programs minimum are losers each year.

(01-20-2015 02:59 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:54 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:09 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Transfer rules are not within the jurisdiction of autonomy.

Correct, for at least two years. If transfer rules aren't addressed by the entirety of D1, it could become an area for autonomous rules.

Yeah but we would be back at that whole game of chicken again. "Give us transfer rule autonomy or we will form our own league" threats all over again. I don't see them going down that road again for transfer rules when they already got what they really wanted. Changing transfer rules changes the competitive balance far more than the rules regarding providing extra benefits.

You probably would even have more pushback within the P5 if it was proposed. Vanderbilt does not want Alabama to have the ability to carry even more athletes on the football team.

Transfer rules aren't left to autonomy, but that doesn't mean they can't be part of a negotiation over another issue (guaranteed scholarships) that hasn't been finally settled. In any case, neither one of these issues has any impact on rules governing overall scholarship limits. Scholarship limits seem to me to be a strawman. I really haven't heard of any serious support for changing them by anybody - P5, G5 or FCS.

To the extent to which the transfer rule changes I proposed change the competitive balance, I would have to ask in whose favor would they change them? I expect they would benefit the bottom half of the P5 and the G5 more than they would the very top P5 programs. Would that be such a bad thing?

(01-20-2015 04:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:59 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:54 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:09 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Transfer rules are not within the jurisdiction of autonomy.

Correct, for at least two years. If transfer rules aren't addressed by the entirety of D1, it could become an area for autonomous rules.

Yeah but we would be back at that whole game of chicken again. "Give us transfer rule autonomy or we will form our own league" threats all over again. I don't see them going down that road again for transfer rules when they already got what they really wanted. Changing transfer rules changes the competitive balance far more than the rules regarding providing extra benefits.

You probably would even have more pushback within the P5 if it was proposed. Vanderbilt does not want Alabama to have the ability to carry even more athletes on the football team.

Transfer rules aren't left to autonomy, but that doesn't mean they can't be part of a negotiation over another issue (guaranteed scholarships) that hasn't been finally settled. In any case, neither one of these issues has any impact on rules governing overall scholarship limits. Scholarship limits seem to me to be a strawman. I really haven't heard of any serious support for changing them by anybody - P5, G5 or FCS.

To the extent to which the transfer rule changes I proposed change the competitive balance, I would have to ask in whose favor would they change them? I expect they would benefit the bottom half of the P5 and the G5 more than they would the very top P5 programs. Would that be such a bad thing?

Maybe not but I think it would come out in the wash. There would be some poaching of top G5 kids and some P5 kids that got buried early on the depth chart would go to G5. It would be another blow to FCS programs in my opinion.

(01-20-2015 04:55 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 04:41 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:59 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:54 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:09 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Transfer rules are not within the jurisdiction of autonomy.

Correct, for at least two years. If transfer rules aren't addressed by the entirety of D1, it could become an area for autonomous rules.

Yeah but we would be back at that whole game of chicken again. "Give us transfer rule autonomy or we will form our own league" threats all over again. I don't see them going down that road again for transfer rules when they already got what they really wanted. Changing transfer rules changes the competitive balance far more than the rules regarding providing extra benefits.

You probably would even have more pushback within the P5 if it was proposed. Vanderbilt does not want Alabama to have the ability to carry even more athletes on the football team.

Transfer rules aren't left to autonomy, but that doesn't mean they can't be part of a negotiation over another issue (guaranteed scholarships) that hasn't been finally settled. In any case, neither one of these issues has any impact on rules governing overall scholarship limits. Scholarship limits seem to me to be a strawman. I really haven't heard of any serious support for changing them by anybody - P5, G5 or FCS.

To the extent to which the transfer rule changes I proposed change the competitive balance, I would have to ask in whose favor would they change them? I expect they would benefit the bottom half of the P5 and the G5 more than they would the very top P5 programs. Would that be such a bad thing?

Maybe not but I think it would come out in the wash. There would be some poaching of top G5 kids and some P5 kids that got buried early on the depth chart would go to G5. It would be another blow to FCS programs in my opinion.

In what way could a school poach anybody? The only thing a school has to do to keep any player it wants and already has on scholarship is to extend his scholarship by a year. Once they do that, he is untouchable. How many scholarships do you think Alabama is going to spend in order to poach a kid from a lesser program whose school doesn't want him? If a kid can't cut the mustard at Houston, why would you think Ohio State would want him more than the kids they already have?

The scary changes that would cause so much harm to G5 are mostly bogus strawman arguments that won't fly in the real world.

The majority of the SEC would never favor raising the total limit nor the signing limit because most of them understand the basics. The basics are this: Most SEC schools would see their talent level drop if the elite of the conference could sign more players and they aren't going to make back that talent gap by raiding kids who would have signed AAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt.

Saban might like to sign 30 and keep 100 on scholarship but if he can it comes at the expense of Ole Miss, Miss State, Vandy, Kentucky, Arkansas, South Carolina.

Guaranteed rides?

How often do you hear of Joe Smith losing his scholarship at Texas A&M? What you normally hear is Joe Smith is transferring from TAMU to get more playing time.

Most coaches never want to yank a ride from a kid. They just tell them it's not working out and if they want a release to transfer they can have it and he will even make some calls to find a place where he can help out immediately.

The only kid the long term ride matters to is the one who is willing to show up for practice and wants to be on the team but does not have any real interest in whether he ever plays or travels.

(01-20-2015 05:42 PM)ken d Wrote:  In what way could a school poach anybody? The only thing a school has to do to keep any player it wants and already has on scholarship is to extend his scholarship by a year. Once they do that, he is untouchable.

I know that the current rules make most athletes sit out a year when transferring, but it's still a wrong idea. Think of a student-non-athlete example. If John Smith is a straight-A engineering student on an academic scholarship at Long Beach State, and he wants to transfer to Caltech, LBSU can't block his transfer or make him wait a year just by awarding him another scholarship.