Transfer Portal 2023-2024...

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Proctor did come back, wouldn’t that count as a second transfer where sitting out a year would be in effect? As far as I know, you’re only immediately eligible after the first transfer. Does the fact that he wouldn’t have actually appeared as a player there waive that?

I don’t know if there has ever been a player to transfer back to their original school, especially that quickly. I am not sure how the NCAA would rule on that. However, I assume they would argue for immediate eligibility due to the tampering.
 
NIL cannot be tied to the school in any way, so this doesn’t work.
That’s the way it ostensibly started out, and I wish it were the case. But since then, the NCAA has closed all investigations related to NIL / pay for play, and said they won’t open any new ones.

Not that previous governance was in any way effective (aTm’s 2022 recruiting class as Exhibit A), there is no longer even any pretense.

There are no rules, and the NCAA has admitted that.
 
Last edited:
NIL cannot be tied to the school in any way, so this doesn’t work.

Why cannot specific NIL contracts be tied to the school? For example, why cannot some Iowa company has an NIL contract with Proctor, that has a statement “this contract is valid only if Proctor is enrolled in Iowa” or something like that?
 
Why cannot specific NIL contracts be tied to the school? For example, why cannot some Iowa company has an NIL contract with Proctor, that has a statement “this contract is valid only if Proctor is enrolled in Iowa” or something like that?
Because then it's just legalized "pay for play". And yes, that IS what's happening right now, but that's not how it's supposed to be. What we need is real leadership from SOMEONE.
 
Why cannot specific NIL contracts be tied to the school? For example, why cannot some Iowa company has an NIL contract with Proctor, that has a statement “this contract is valid only if Proctor is enrolled in Iowa” or something like that?

How do you know that it doesn't? I have no doubt that that stipulation is in every NIL contract out there. :cool:

The rule is that the collective is no connected to the school in any form or fashion.
 
If Proctor did come back, wouldn’t that count as a second transfer where sitting out a year would be in effect? As far as I know, you’re only immediately eligible after the first transfer. Does the fact that he wouldn’t have actually appeared as a player there waive that?...
I think because there was a HC change, that the first one didn't count.
I was wondering about this. That would make some sense.
None of them count nowadays anyway. Seriously when was the last time a high-profile player had to sit a year after transferring?
I don’t know if there has ever been a player to transfer back to their original school, especially that quickly. I am not sure how the NCAA would rule on that. However, I assume they would argue for immediate eligibility due to the tampering.



These articles, listed below, shed some light on Proctor's situation.

 
NIL is a issue but the real problem is transfer portal, you fix that and it will take care of the NIL for most part

The real issue isn't NIL, but the transfer portal. I am in FULL agreement with going back to losing a year of eligibility if a player decides to transfer. There also needs to be very limited "exceptions" as well, not a laundry list of "personal reasons" that a player can transfer without sitting out.
 
The real issue isn't NIL, but the transfer portal. I am in FULL agreement with going back to losing a year of eligibility if a player decides to transfer. There also needs to be very limited "exceptions" as well, not a laundry list of "personal reasons" that a player can transfer without sitting out.

I agree, but I also like the idea of schools having to pay buyouts to other school. The argument has always been coaches can change jobs whenever they want, but everyone just skips over the buyout that is paid. Make the new school pay a buyout to the old school if a player transfers. The new schools will think twice about the investment before accepting a transfer. There will still be transfers, but not like today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrimsonRuss
I agree, but I also like the idea of schools having to pay buyouts to other school. The argument has always been coaches can change jobs whenever they want, but everyone just skips over the buyout that is paid. Make the new school pay a buyout to the old school if a player transfers. The new schools will think twice about the investment before accepting a transfer. There will still be transfers, but not like today.

I think the sitting out is a steep enough penalty because the school has to wait an entire year before playing him. IMO, adding a buyout to a kid already having to sit out is excessive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoNC4Tubs
I think the sitting out is a steep enough penalty because the school has to wait an entire year before playing him. IMO, adding a buyout to a kid already having to sit out is excessive.

This is more of an alternative to sitting out. Not sure sitting out will be an option going forward, that "toothpaste may be out of the tube" so to speak. Although, I do like the sitting out option. I do agree both sitting out AND a buyout are excessive.
 
These articles, listed below, shed some light on Proctor's situation.

Great, thanks for the articles. I didn’t realize a precedent had already been set. Perfect for the athlete who wants to play hot potato with his college career. Until there is some kind of contract-based format that athletes must adhere to, college football is going to make a mockery of itself with the portal.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: REDSEA
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads