1 Time Transfer Rule

John_J_Rambo

Senior
Jan 10, 2020
2,428
4,170
113
Hs nothing to do with transfers.
I believe that's the point.

lots of folks imagining some far out merry-go-round (see above) when in reality a very small percentage of players, especially impact players, end up transferring. sitting out 1 year likely isn't keeping would-be transfers from leaving, just like no limitation wouldn't all of a sudden spur on a sort of musical chairs between kids and programs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeans15

Husker Red 182

Walk On
Oct 28, 2019
152
150
43
I think it is a horrible idea. Would turn into absolute chaos. If kids no longer have to worry about having to sit out a year there is nothing to stop them from transferring if they don't win the starting job year 1. It is going to be almost impossible for programs like Nebraska, where keeping talented depth is already an issue. Good luck now keeping any talent that doesn't start right away.
I think the ONLY reason where a kid should be aloud to transfer is a coaching change, or a death or illness in the immediate family.
dude relax it just changes how teams acquire talent. In a lot of cases I bet the parting is mutual anyways and the kid that leaves is prob not going to fit in with program anyway. And secondly there are only so many starting spots regardless of where a kid goes. Finally if a kid doesn’t get it right the first time pressure is on to do it the second. I’m all for if a coach can move around at Will why cant a player
 
  • Like
Reactions: John_J_Rambo

Harry Caray

Head Coach
Feb 28, 2002
12,753
8,431
113
dude relax it just changes how teams acquire talent. In a lot of cases I bet the parting is mutual anyways and the kid that leaves is prob not going to fit in with program anyway. And secondly there are only so many starting spots regardless of where a kid goes. Finally if a kid doesn’t get it right the first time pressure is on to do it the second. I’m all for if a coach can move around at Will why cant a player
Coaches have to pay a buyout if they leave, players have to sit out a year. There are consequences for both. Should scholarships come with a buyout clause instead?

I think this new rule won't be a good thing for programs like Nebraska that get most of their players from out-of-state. A lot of freshmen who feel a little homesick and aren't playing much might not have as much patience to stick it out here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: husker2612

Husker Red 182

Walk On
Oct 28, 2019
152
150
43
Coaches have to pay a buyout if they leave, players have to sit out a year. There are consequences for both. Should scholarships come with a buyout clause instead?

I think this new rule won't be a good thing for programs like Nebraska that get most of their players from out-of-state. A lot of freshmen who feel a little homesick and aren't playing much might not have as much patience to stick it out here.
The programs that it hurts are the smaller schools who could lose higher level players to larger programs. Nebraska for most part will lose kids who were not going to contribute anyway
 

jeans15

Head Coach
Feb 23, 2011
12,745
3,494
113
I believe that's the point.

lots of folks imagining some far out merry-go-round (see above) when in reality a very small percentage of players, especially impact players, end up transferring. sitting out 1 year likely isn't keeping would-be transfers from leaving, just like no limitation wouldn't all of a sudden spur on a sort of musical chairs between kids and programs.
Gotcha
 

NikkiSixx

Graduate Assistant
Sep 14, 2013
5,460
3,570
113
the B1G is stupid.. it is like socialism for college football, but of course they don't ever win anything anymore either. Just a matter of time until those TV rights aren't so meaningful to bidders.
 

John_J_Rambo

Senior
Jan 10, 2020
2,428
4,170
113
the B1G is stupid.. it is like socialism for college football, but of course they don't ever win anything anymore either. Just a matter of time until those TV rights aren't so meaningful to bidders.
controversial take at a time when the people running the biggest networks in the world are foaming at the mouth for more live sports rights.

a quote from the CEO of Disney: "Nobody's ever overpaid for live sports."

there will never, ever be a time when those TV rights are any less meaningful to bidders. sorry.
 

NikkiSixx

Graduate Assistant
Sep 14, 2013
5,460
3,570
113
controversial take at a time when the people running the biggest networks in the world are foaming at the mouth for more live sports rights.

a quote from the CEO of Disney: "Nobody's ever overpaid for live sports."

there will never, ever be a time when those TV rights are any less meaningful to bidders. sorry.
never is a long time..

Stephen Burke a VP at Comcast, says that content creators (Youtube) are 'eating their lunch'. 'Their' meaning traditional cable networks, which may not survive in their current form.

What happens when Live sports goes to the pay per view, ala cart model? No networks, just pay to watch the game. How much money will be lost in that disruption and removal of the middle man? how much belt tightening has ESPN had to do for years now?

Again, the model is going to change, and never is a very very long time.
 

John_J_Rambo

Senior
Jan 10, 2020
2,428
4,170
113
never is a long time..

Stephen Burke a VP at Comcast, says that content creators (Youtube) are 'eating their lunch'. 'Their' meaning traditional cable networks, which may not survive in their current form.

What happens when Live sports goes to the pay per view, ala cart model? No networks, just pay to watch the game. How much money will be lost in that disruption and removal of the middle man? how much belt tightening has ESPN had to do for years now?

Again, the model is going to change, and never is a very very long time.
live sports will go to game-by-game pay per view? I don't think so.

ESPN may be tightening their belts in terms of no more magazine, etc., but they've never had more resources pointed directly at live sports. SEC network, monday night football and so on.

the middle man won't disrupt live sports because they can't. the entire sport of football will die before networks desire airing it less.
 

NikkiSixx

Graduate Assistant
Sep 14, 2013
5,460
3,570
113
live sports will go to game-by-game pay per view? I don't think so.

ESPN may be tightening their belts in terms of no more magazine, etc., but they've never had more resources pointed directly at live sports. SEC network, monday night football and so on.

the middle man won't disrupt live sports because they can't. the entire sport of football will die before networks desire airing it less.
the disruption is the removal of the middle man
 

mtvrdy

Senior
Jan 27, 2004
2,830
1,283
113
Hey JD Speilman, Dabo here. We need you down here in Clemson, now have us some real generous car dealers down here that have put together an outstanding package for you to look at.

We are talking commercials, radio spots, autograph sessions. We believe you'll like the dollars they are prepared to give you for your NIL.

Come on down and join a championship team, you're the only piece we're missing this fall due to Jimmy Joe hurting his knee and all.
Rich would get richer for sure. The best players would leave for a chance at a Clemson, Alabama, LSU, Ohio State etc. if they weren't eligible for the pro's.
 

John_J_Rambo

Senior
Jan 10, 2020
2,428
4,170
113
Rich would get richer for sure. The best players would leave for a chance at a Clemson, Alabama, LSU, Ohio State etc. if they weren't eligible for the pro's.
How’s that different from what happens today?

Pretty rare a kid with an offer from any of those 4 schools goes elsewhere. Same for a transfer.

This is the laziest argument going.