"The FCS transfer problem"

[PTGrizzly]

I imagine that if the Cats were actually good (and by good, I mean NC caliber good) he probably wouldn't have transferred.

 

[SACCAT66]

I imagine that if the Cats were actually good (and by good, I mean NC caliber good) he probably wouldn't have transferred.

I think you are wrong here. I think that he was gone no matter what. He took extra classes last summer to speed up the process. There was talk after his sophomore year that he was really trying to get it done, and when Adams made starter and was all over the news, that clinched it. Now, us being so terrible last year didn't help, but the writing was on the wall for at least 2 years.

 

[kemajic]

It would piss me off if an All-American Griz QB transferred with eligibility remaining. When it happens to other teams...I don't care.

It's really that simple for me. In the big picture, I can't really blame a talented QB for wanting to showcase their talents at the FBS level. But, like declaring early for the draft...they better make sure they will see the field. Grass might not always be greener.

These players have given four years to the teams that signed them. It is unlikely it was the player's decision to redshirt the first year. This is something that needs to be taken into account when redshirting. I'm with the players on this one; they've paid their dues.

 

[Griz1]

So far IMO we are talking about 1 successful transfer up to Oregon. I think Vernon Adams was an exception. Maybe Prukop will play and maybe not.

I think unless a quarterback is very exceptional he won't make a big splash. Then what? He sits on the bench for his final year after being a star before the transfer. I believe if he really wants a chance to go to the NFL he is better served by taking more snaps and getting more time starting for a school even if it is on a lower level unless, of course, you are an exception such as Vernon Adams, who I think will be a star in the CFL eventually but not the NFL. I don't believe Prukop is in the same class but I have been wrong before and may be wrong on this.

I have been told by many different coaches in all sports and a few scouts that "if you're good enough they will find you". I firmly believe that.

 

[UMGriz75]

Sure the coaches that recruited him are asking him to be "Committed" to the program for the full4-5 years, but didn't these same coaches also tell the players they were "Committed" to them for the 4-5 years they play here? Yet every year Coaches cut players that aren't getting it done for one reason or another. You can't have it both ways.

And this underscores a closely related issue, scholarships. As noted in our "Pflugate" episode, a kid makes his whole life plans around attending a specific university, develops his important first and second year social and peer groups, his relationships with his department major and all of sudden, poof. He's back hunting again, this time as a public cast-off instead of a high school star, off of the standard high school recruiting radars, out hunting on his own, losing academic major credits through incompatibility, spending more money and time to replace them, undergoing a cross-country move again (not cheap), and re-establishing a peer group.

And why is a student athlete subjected to those economic, academic and social penalties? Because he took someone's word in the first place.

The kid can't move at the better opportunity, but the coach can cut him at any time causing him harm.

Situations like that raise legal issues like "disparity of bargaining power," "unconscionability," "bad faith," and even "deceit." Certainly, the spectacle leaves a negative impression with the high staff salaries, expensive University facilities, President's boxes for lavish entertainment of important alumni and politicians, all raking it in on the backs of some kid on the field who is playing hard, eating ramen for breakfast, trying to make his grades, and in every game, risks a disabling injury.

In a system in which major penalties and sanctions exist if anyone even hands the kid a hot dog, while the $300,000 coach gets a free car, free dinners, and the summer camp proceeds everywhere he goes.

Times have indeed changed, for everybody but the student-athlete.

I can see this coming to litigation soon: if the kid can't accept the "better" offer for four years, then the University has to guarantee his scholarship for that period. The power of the legal argument there is, to me, compelling, absolutely compelling. In other words, for coaches who want to keep with the current NCAA rule, "be careful what you ask for. You might get it." You just might have to pay for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/sports/colleges-shift-on-four-year-scholarships-reflects-players-growing-power.html?_r=0

 

[AZGrizFan]

Now before we start throwing tomatoes at the Ash comment, can we actually have a discussion about this? I see both points and want to know what some of you guys actually think.

I think the problem with Ash's statement is that the NCAA already makes it very difficult for FCS players to transfer to FBS - they generally have to sit out a year except under the very narrow circumstances where the player has graduated and has a year of eligibility left. In that case FBS players can also transfer to other FBS schools with no penalty, so I don't see how this makes FCS AAA level. If anything it elevates FCS to the same level as FBS. If anything I suppose most FCS schools would want to be treated as a AAA program, as long as the FBS school had to purchase the player contract from them, it could be a major source of income to FCS programsm ha ha.

If I was an FCS coach I would use the graduate transfer option as an inducement to a tweener player that is looking at sitting on the bench for 3 years at Power 5 school, or fighting for playing time at G5 - come here, start 3 years and shine then you will have the opportunity to Grad Transfer to a Power 5 as a starter. if that is a tool FCS coaches can use to steal FBS talent I am not sure what the problem is.

Could not agree more. Well said, beer. :thumb:

 

[UMGriz75]

I have been told by many different coaches in all sports and a few scouts that "if you're good enough they will find you". I firmly believe that.

Of course, the FBS schools, by increasingly going to the "Four Year Scholarship" system, are basically pumping the well dry for the outstanding talent. The FCS schools are literally "left with the leftovers" and its just a few exceptions like Vernon Adams and Dakota Prukop who might 1) have the talent and 2) the good fortune and planning to be able to make the transition "up."

But both of those circumstances have to exist. Those who may be able to demonstrate the talent at the FCS level but not the academic circumstances are locked into the system that still keeps them committed to the school without a concomitant or reciprocal commitment of the school to them.

"If you are good enough" isn't the end of the story.

Change coaches and strategies? Bang, talented kid gets dumped. Willy Pflug. Less marketable than if he's a high school senior getting recruited, and less if he's a college sophomore, even less as a junior, suppose he's starting his senior year?

Needs 140 credits to graduate in his major, and he has 115, but even if he does get an offer, the new school will only recognize 80 of his transfer credits? He's screwed.

 

[Umista]

75 is right on.

A very gifted kid on the field is screwed if he is average in school. He may opt for the NFL draft his junior year but that is very very iffy for kids in our league.

In the end I don't see the FCS transfer as a big problem. Sure it would hurt the Griz (and me) if we had that situation. One needs to look at the Bizon and note they have not had to deal with it and they keep on winning and even if their star QB left they would (did) have won the world!

Coaches try to get the smartest kids and we don't want Stitt to go after poor student QBs just to shy away from such a "problem".

 

[goatcreekgriz]

Sure the coaches that recruited him are asking him to be "Committed" to the program for the full4-5 years, but didn't these same coaches also tell the players they were "Committed" to them for the 4-5 years they play here? Yet every year Coaches cut players that aren't getting it done for one reason or another. You can't have it both ways.

And this underscores a closely related issue, scholarships. As noted in our "Pflugate" episode, a kid makes his whole life plans around attending a specific university, develops his important first and second year social and peer groups, his relationships with his department major and all of sudden, poof. He's back hunting again, this time as a public cast-off instead of a high school star, off of the standard high school recruiting radars, out hunting on his own, losing academic major credits through incompatibility, spending more money and time to replace them, undergoing a cross-country move again (not cheap), and re-establishing a peer group.

And why is a student athlete subjected to those economic, academic and social penalties? Because he took someone's word in the first place.

The kid can't move at the better opportunity, but the coach can cut him at any time causing him harm.

Situations like that raise legal issues like "disparity of bargaining power," "unconscionability," "bad faith," and even "deceit." Certainly, the spectacle leaves a negative impression with the high staff salaries, expensive University facilities, President's boxes for lavish entertainment of important alumni and politicians, all raking it in on the backs of some kid on the field who is playing hard, eating ramen for breakfast, trying to make his grades, and in every game, risks a disabling injury.

In a system in which major penalties and sanctions exist if anyone even hands the kid a hot dog, while the $300,000 coach gets a free car, free dinners, and the summer camp proceeds everywhere he goes.

Times have indeed changed, for everybody but the student-athlete.

I can see this coming to litigation soon: if the kid can't accept the "better" offer for four years, then the University has to guarantee his scholarship for that period. The power of the legal argument there is, to me, compelling, absolutely compelling. In other words, for coaches who want to keep with the current NCAA rule, "be careful what you ask for. You might get it." You just might have to pay for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/sports/colleges-shift-on-four-year-scholarships-reflects-players-growing-power.html?_r=0

There is no easy answer. Even if there is a four-year (or even five-year) scholarship agreement, last I knew specific performance is not a remedy for breach of a personal services contract. Besides, the schools do not want athletes to be considered employees (or even long-term independent contractors). Let kids have opportunities and let them rise to the level of their potential. It is not a significant problem, if it is a problem at all.

 

[griz4life]

I have no problem with FCS players transferring to FBS, but but it's time to get rid of the "Swogger rule" requiring two years of eligibility for FBS transfers to FCS.