Rece Davis: "I'm good with it" (transfer portal)

BamaNation · Jul 13, 2019

Rece Davis said:
The biggest story going into the season is how the transfer portal has changed things,” Davis said. “And you know what? I’m good with it.

That doesn’t make me too popular with some of the coaches. But I don’t mind going on the record with it...About the only good reason I can come up with to be against (player movement without a sit-out penalty) is nostalgia. There are fans out there who love good old State U. and they think that a player who signs there should stay until graduates. They think 'I would do anything to play for State U., and so should the players.'

https://www.tidesports.com/cecil-hu...season-of-change-as-2019-football-approaches/

Of course he's ok with it...ESPN loves it because they get to cover it, talk about it ad nauseam, speculate about it all season, cause locker room trouble and then cover the locker room trouble, take polls of who might leave and where they'll go, make comparisons of QB1 vs QB2 and why that matters, etc. It's all about content generation across many platforms for them.

I'm ok with it, too, for graduated players - who shouldn't have to sit out a season - and anyone else who wants to transfer should have to sit out (no exceptions).

GrayTide · Jul 13, 2019

BamaNation said:
https://www.tidesports.com/cecil-hu...season-of-change-as-2019-football-approaches/

Of course he's ok with it...ESPN loves it because they get to cover it, talk about it ad nauseam, speculate about it all season, cause locker room trouble and then cover the locker room trouble, take polls of who might leave and where they'll go, make comparisons of QB1 vs QB2 and why that matters, etc. It's all about content generation across many platforms for them.

I'm ok with it, too, for graduated players - who shouldn't have to sit out a season - and anyone else who wants to transfer should have to sit out (no exceptions).

This is exactly how it should be. A graduate should play immediately if he has 1 or 2 years of eligibility left. Any transfer who has not graduated sits a year, no appeals, no exceptions. I would also like to see a rule that no player can transfer to another school within the same conference. I am sure this would never be agreed to.

WMack4Bama · Jul 13, 2019

I'm not against it at all. I agree with Rece 100%

B1GTide · Jul 13, 2019

I also agree with Rece, but I think that the NCAA should be a lot more discerning in their immediate eligibility appeal process.

Ole Man Dan · Jul 15, 2019

BamaNation said:
https://www.tidesports.com/cecil-hu...season-of-change-as-2019-football-approaches/

Of course he's ok with it...ESPN loves it because they get to cover it, talk about it ad nauseam, speculate about it all season, cause locker room trouble and then cover the locker room trouble, take polls of who might leave and where they'll go, make comparisons of QB1 vs QB2 and why that matters, etc. It's all about content generation across many platforms for them.

I'm ok with it, too, for graduated players - who shouldn't have to sit out a season - and anyone else who wants to transfer should have to sit out (no exceptions).

It needs refinement. They created Chaos with the present system.
It should have been for Graduates, not some kid with hurt feelings,
and not for the guys who left because they would never be a starter.
The current rules, or lack there of... leave coaches uncertain who their players will be...

WMack4Bama · Jul 15, 2019

That works both ways. There are hundreds of college athletes every year who are uncertain who their coaches will be. Despite what anyone thinks, not very many players are committing to play for schools, but rather they're committing to play for coaches. That's where the relationships are. Those are the people that mom & dad felt comfortable leaving their son/daughter in the care of.

Ole Man Dan said:
It needs refinement. They created Chaos with the present system.
It should have been for Graduates, not some kid with hurt feelings,
and not for the guys who left because they would never be a starter.
The current rules, or lack there of... leave coaches uncertain who their players will be...

peariver · Jul 15, 2019

Ole Man Dan said:
It needs refinement. They created Chaos with the present system.
It should have been for Graduates, not some kid with hurt feelings,
and not for the guys who left because they would never be a starter.
The current rules, or lack there of... leave coaches uncertain who their players will be...

I'm confused because IMO that is exactly who it should be for. Why continue playing for school X as the back up and you are good enough to start at Y or Z. These kids only have four years to play and that is why they put the time and effort into. It is not their fault that someone with more talent also plays for their current school.

TiderJack · Jul 15, 2019

B1GTide said:
I also agree with Rece, but I think that the NCAA should be a lot more discerning in their immediate eligibility appeal process.

And from what I heard about our recent basketball transfer from Villanova the NCAA is doing this. College free agency is concerning to me.

WMack4Bama · Jul 15, 2019

Yeah. They're tweaking the rules a bit. I'm not as confident as I was earlier in the summer about him playing this season.

TiderJack said:
And from what I heard about our recent basketball transfer from Villanova the NCAA is doing this. College free agency is concerning to me.

TiderJack · Jul 15, 2019

WMack4Bama said:
Yeah. They're tweaking the rules a bit. I'm not as confident as I was earlier in the summer about him playing this season.

Me either. Was hoping to see him play this coming year.

4Q Basket Case · Jul 16, 2019

I support the idea of the portal, but it has to be used properly.

Graduates should be able to transfer anywhere, and maintain immediate eligibility.

Undergraduates should be able to transfer anywhere, but have to sit a year, no exceptions. I just don't believe you should enable solving perceived adversity by running from it.

If they don't have any skin in the transfer process, it encourages impetuous decisions born of frustration with factors that will likely resolve themselves by the time the sit-out year is finished. It also makes young people more vulnerable to "counsel" from handlers, representatives, advisors, relatives, and all manner of hangers-on, virtually none of whom have the athlete's best interest at heart.

GrayTide · Jul 16, 2019

It can also negatively affect the transfer's new team mates, having a disgruntled player who, in most cases, was afraid to compete where he was now shows up and becomes a starter. This does not necessarily make for a cohesive locker room. Having to sit a year gives everyone a chance to acclimate and bond for the betterment of the team.

WMack4Bama · Jul 16, 2019

I like that, but I think the kid should still have all of his eligibility left when he can play. It's early and I haven't had my coffee, so I may be foggy. But as it has been, when a kid transfers doesn't the year they sit count as 1? If so, I think that should be tweaked. Let's say, in this case, Justin Fields transferred after his freshman year. If he has to sit one year, fine. But when he can play, he has his full allotment of 3 years remaining. That seems fair to me.

One size doesn't fit all. One athlete may transfer bc of playing time. One athlete may transfer bc of a family health problem. The latter shouldn't be "punished" in my opinion.

4Q Basket Case said:
I support the idea of the portal, but it has to be used properly.

Graduates should be able to transfer anywhere, and maintain immediate eligibility.

Undergraduates should be able to transfer anywhere, but have to sit a year, no exceptions. I just don't believe you should enable solving perceived adversity by running from it.

If they don't have any skin in the transfer process, it encourages impetuous decisions born of frustration with factors that will likely resolve themselves by the time the sit-out year is finished. It also makes young people more vulnerable to "counsel" from handlers, representatives, advisors, relatives, and all manner of hangers-on, virtually none of whom have the athlete's best interest at heart.

GrayTide · Jul 16, 2019

WMack4Bama said:
I like that, but I think the kid should still have all of his eligibility left when he can play. It's early and I haven't had my coffee, so I may be foggy. But as it has been, when a kid transfers doesn't the year they sit count as 1? If so, I think that should be tweaked. Let's say, in this case, Justin Fields transferred after his freshman year. If he has to sit one year, fine. But when he can play, he has his full allotment of 3 years remaining. That seems fair to me.

One size doesn't fit all. One athlete may transfer bc of playing time. One athlete may transfer bc of a family health problem. The latter shouldn't be "punished" in my opinion.

I totally agree with this, but you may likely see an increase in the number of family health related issues from those players transferring.

BamaNation · Jul 16, 2019

agree with WMACK with these caveats... if a kid wants to transfer, so be it. Let them. I just don't like that they can play immediately. I think REGARDLESS OF THE REASON OF THE TRANSFER (unless you have a degree in hand already) that you should have to sit 1 year. That's tough but that's life. If this were implemented, then there's no inequality and randomness like there is now (no appeals process would be necessary, no judgement required, etc.) Just 1 year sitting if you transfer but you don't lose any years of eligibility for that. Also, make it that you have 6 years to play 4 and eliminate the medical redshirt nonsense.

Consequences may make some of these kids who are never happy and jump around multiple times rethink their hopscotching!

Bamabuzzard · Jul 16, 2019

Yep, completely agree. Sitting out a year is "punishment" enough. To then take away a year of eligibility is just over kill. Or, give the players an option. Sit out a year and keep full eligibility, or choose to play immediately and lose a year of eligibility. You know kids these days are all about options and choices. LOL!

WMack4Bama said:
I like that, but I think the kid should still have all of his eligibility left when he can play. It's early and I haven't had my coffee, so I may be foggy. But as it has been, when a kid transfers doesn't the year they sit count as 1? If so, I think that should be tweaked. Let's say, in this case, Justin Fields transferred after his freshman year. If he has to sit one year, fine. But when he can play, he has his full allotment of 3 years remaining. That seems fair to me.

One size doesn't fit all. One athlete may transfer bc of playing time. One athlete may transfer bc of a family health problem. The latter shouldn't be "punished" in my opinion.

colbysullivan · Jul 17, 2019

The player can still use a redshirt for the sit-year. If Justin Fields was forced to sit a year, he would have redshirted and still had 3 years of eligibility after that.

Search

Rece Davis: "I'm good with it" (transfer portal)

BamaNation

Publisher and Benevolent Dictator

GrayTide

Hall of Fame

WMack4Bama

Administrator

B1GTide

TideFans Legend

Ole Man Dan

Hall of Fame

WMack4Bama

Administrator

peariver

1st Team

TiderJack

Hall of Fame

WMack4Bama

Administrator

TiderJack

Hall of Fame

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator

GrayTide

Hall of Fame

WMack4Bama

Administrator

GrayTide

Hall of Fame

BamaNation

Publisher and Benevolent Dictator

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator

colbysullivan

Hall of Fame

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!