NCAA About to Screw Up Again, Portal Windows Needed, Unlimited Transfers Not

I agree, it's nonsense and promotes a quitting attitude. Further, did the committee not even look at the current state of the portal with (last I heard) over 1,000 athletes without a home? That's more than 1,000 athletes that lost their scholarship with the (unrealistic?) hope of finding another opportunity. The latest proposal will only exacerbate the problem. At some point, the rules makers need to at least consider measures to save the athletes from themselves.

I think that you misinterpreted what was there, Robert.

The paragraph above says this: Also, the schools that accept a transfer would be required to provide financial aid to the incoming student-athlete through the completion of the student's five-year period of eligibility or undergraduate graduation.

Doesn't that say that the kids cannot transfer again, and that the accepting school must pay the transfers schooling for the remainder of his eligibility? That's how it reads.

The amendment would change that condition and allow the students to transfer again, with penalty, just like they can now, which would get the first team off the hook for the transfers expenses.

It sounds like a net positive for the kids, they can opt to keep with the school and get aid for the remainder of their eligibility, or they could transfer again if desired, and sit out a year, just like they already can.

Nope. The Council endorsed a concept that would eliminate the blanket rule prohibiting transferring more than once.

Schools are required to provide a scholarship for the remainder of their 5-yr window for any athlete signed out of the portal.

Athletes can enter the portal and sign with a new school as many times as they choose without sitting out a year or losing a year of eligibility.

Was all over radio yesterday.

"Thank you, NCAA; we will be raising young adults that will turn and run and won't have any of those stories to fall back on when they find adversity, and they will, in something other than sports"

I am not staking out a position one way or another .... rather, a position that you can have an opposing viewpoint that still has merit ...

ie... is the athlete a quitter OR courageous for pursuing their dream to play where their might be a stronger need for them and offer better option for seeing the field ... etc

personally, i would never suggest someone is a quitter for pursuing a job/career option that offerred (what they thought) a better opportunity to achieve their dream .... that is a courageous/goal oriented/driven individual NOT a quitter ... we are way to quick to label folks in this word if they dont agree with your viewpoint ... sadly ..

Courage:

Running from your failure/disappointment

Or

Confronting your failure/disappointment.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

I think that you misinterpreted what was there, Robert.

The paragraph above says this: Also, the schools that accept a transfer would be required to provide financial aid to the incoming student-athlete through the completion of the student's five-year period of eligibility or undergraduate graduation.

Doesn't that say that the kids cannot transfer again, and that the accepting school must pay the transfers schooling for the remainder of his eligibility? That's how it reads.

The amendment would change that condition and allow the students to transfer again, with penalty, just like they can now, which would get the first team off the hook for the transfers expenses.

It sounds like a net positive for the kids, they can opt to keep with the school and get aid for the remainder of their eligibility, or they could transfer again if desired, and sit out a year, just like they already can.

---

Requires school to provide financial assistance, but requires no commitment from the athlete. After a year, they could be on their way again and again and again…

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Nope. The Council endorsed a concept that would eliminate the blanket rule prohibiting transferring more than once.

Schools are required to provide a scholarship for the remainder of their 5-yr window for any athlete signed out of the portal.

Athletes can enter the portal and sign with a new school as many times as they choose without sitting out a year or losing a year of eligibility.

Was all over radio yesterday.

---

Thanks for the clarification. I don't listen to sports radio.

Personally, I think this is a good idea, since it allows kids to shop for better NIL deals as the teams continue to up the ante for buying players.

if the SEC is against it, then it's probably good for college football

Of course any booster or school discussing an NIL deal with an athlete in the portal would be an NCAA violation. Thus, providing athletes more opportunities to chase NIL deals is the very last reason the proposed rules should be implemented.

Gumby,

I don't think the NCAA has any plans to really enforce the NIL rules. If they did LSU and Texas A&M would already be in trouble, and UT would be right behind them.

CowboyKip said:

---

Gumby,

I don't think the NCAA has any plans to really enforce the NIL rules. If they did LSU and Texas A&M would already be in trouble, and UT would be right behind them.

---

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But three things.
1. I believe the NCAA is looking into NIL violations. I've heard Miami mentioned.
2. Why implement a rule that promotes the violation of another rule?
3. Would you recommend our boosters or NIL collective representatives contact players in the portal?

Gumby,

If the NCAA is looking into anything then they are doing it VERY quietly. Kind of defeats deterrence. If you want to deter the behavior you want people to know the rules are being enforced.

I wouldn't encourage our boosters in contacting individuals to get into the portal (it's currently against the rules), but LSU boosters did, and nothing happened (other than they got the player they wanted).

CowboyKip said:

---

Gumby,

If the NCAA is looking into anything then they are doing it VERY quietly. Kind of defeats deterrence. If you want to deter the behavior you want people to know the rules are being enforced.

I wouldn't encourage our boosters in contacting individuals to get into the portal (it's currently against the rules), but LSU boosters did, and nothing happened (other than they got the player they wanted).

---

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2022/06/09/ncaa-enforcement-nil-issues-letter-potential-violations

Good news. I'm hearing the NCAA WILL NOT adopt the proposed unlimited transfer rule.

Where did you hear that? Great news if true.

thetruth said:

---

Where did you hear that? Great news if true.

---

"Multiple sources told The Athletic on Saturday that it is increasingly unlikely that the Division I Board of Directors will vote to eliminate the NCAA rule prohibiting multiple transfers by athletes at its Aug. 3 meeting. This would mean that the one-time transfer rule would remain in place. The creation of transfer windows may also be delayed."

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

thetruth said:

---

Where did you hear that? Great news if true.

---

"Multiple sources told The Athletic on Saturday that it is increasingly unlikely that the Division I Board of Directors will vote to eliminate the NCAA rule prohibiting multiple transfers by athletes at its Aug. 3 meeting. This would mean that the one-time transfer rule would remain in place. The creation of transfer windows may also be delayed."

---

Does that bolded part of the paragraph make sense? Eliminate the NCAA rule "prohibiting" multiple transfers???

Seems like we would like "to prohibit" multiple transfers?

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Good news. I'm hearing the NCAA WILL NOT adopt the proposed unlimited transfer rule.

---

is that "good news" for the players, or good news for the coaches?

it doesn't sound like it helps the players at all (or the university). If they are not allowed to transfer again (with penalty), then they could be stuck where they don't want to play, and the University stuck paying their aid without getting the effort or return.

If it's allowed for the ncaa olympic sports (notably baseball), then why is it banned for the other ncaa sports?

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Good news. I'm hearing the NCAA WILL NOT adopt the proposed unlimited transfer rule.

---

is that "good news" for the players, or good news for the coaches?

it doesn't sound like it helps the players at all (or the university). If they are not allowed to transfer again (with penalty), then they could be stuck where they don't want to play, and the University stuck paying their aid without getting the effort or return.

If it's allowed for the ncaa olympic sports (notably baseball), then why is it banned for the other ncaa sports?

---

It's good for college football. It's good for every athlete that would gamble his scholarship on the hopes of finding a new school just to get stuck in the portal.

Every athlete can transfer more than once. They just have to sit out a year beginning with their second transfer. It's incumbent on the athlete when he/she transfers the first time that they have realistic expectations about playing time and fully check out the community, school and coaching staff before committing. In my view, any mistakes are on the athlete.

Further, we don't want the high profile athletes continuously shopping for an NIL deal. That's a violation and too tempting for boosters to recruit off another schools roster.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

It's good for college football. It's good for every athlete that would gamble his scholarship on the hopes of finding a new school just to get stuck in the portal.

Every athlete can transfer more than once. They just have to sit out a year beginning with their second transfer. It's incumbent on the athlete when he/she transfers the first time that they have realistic expectations about playing time and fully check out the community, school and coaching staff before committing. In my view, any mistakes are on the athlete.

Further, we don't want the high profile athletes continuously shopping for an NIL deal. That's a violation and too tempting for boosters to recruit off another schools roster.

---

..... the kids should be able to transfer whenever, without penalty.

it's very odd to me that you use terms like "gambling a scholarship", in your post, and "we don't want", as if what we want has any bearing ... when you're talking about THEIR future.

neither you, nor I, nor anybody else should have any say-so in their futures.

there should be rules about buying players, but those rules should not be disguised as being helpful to the academic or other interests of the players or the teams.

I'm not sure anyone would put much stock in the opinion of someone whose first take on the subject was it provided a great opportunity for the players and boosters to cheat.

thetruth said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

thetruth said:

---

Where did you hear that? Great news if true.

---

"Multiple sources told The Athletic on Saturday that it is increasingly unlikely that the Division I Board of Directors will vote to eliminate the NCAA rule prohibiting multiple transfers by athletes at its Aug. 3 meeting. This would mean that the one-time transfer rule would remain in place. The creation of transfer windows may also be delayed."

---

Does that bolded part of the paragraph make sense? Eliminate the NCAA rule "prohibiting" multiple transfers???

Seems like we would like "to prohibit" multiple transfers?

---

The current rule prohibits multiple transfers. It's unlikely they will vote to eliminate the current rule.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

I'm not sure anyone would put much stock in the opinion of someone whose first take on the subject was it provided a great opportunity for the players and boosters to cheat.

---

I never ever said that. You're wrong, you're always wrong.

I never said anything about being great for boosters or the players to cheat. Never.

why don't you simply comment on the topic, and stop trying to make others into monsters?

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

I'm not sure anyone would put much stock in the opinion of someone whose first take on the subject was it provided a great opportunity for the players and boosters to cheat.

---

I never ever said that. You're wrong, you're always wrong.

I never said anything about being great for boosters or the players to cheat. Never.

why don't you simply comment on the topic, and stop trying to make others into monsters?

---

Your words:

"Personally, I think this is a good idea, since it allows kids to shop for better NIL deals as the teams continue to up the ante for buying players."

Shopping for an NIL deal is cheating. Cheating by the player for discussing an NIL deal BEFORE signing with a new program. Cheating by a booster or school for offering an NIL deal BEFORE an athlete signs with a new program.

Again, why would anyone take stock in your opinion on this matter? Not only do you not know the rules, you don't even know the meaning of what you say.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

I'm not sure anyone would put much stock in the opinion of someone whose first take on the subject was it provided a great opportunity for the players and boosters to cheat.

---

I never ever said that. You're wrong, you're always wrong.

I never said anything about being great for boosters or the players to cheat. Never.

why don't you simply comment on the topic, and stop trying to make others into monsters?

---

Your words:

"Personally, I think this is a good idea, since it allows kids to shop for better NIL deals as the teams continue to up the ante for buying players."

Shopping for an NIL deal is cheating. Cheating by the player for discussing an NIL deal BEFORE signing with a new program. Cheating by a booster or school for offering an NIL deal BEFORE an athlete signs with a new program.

Again, why would anyone take stock in your opinion on this matter? Not only do you not know the rules, you don't even know the meaning of what you say.

---

okay, I did type that joke, but good lord, that was tongue in cheek, just like the following sentence that you conveniently omitted.

the one: "if the SEC is against it, then it's probably good for college football". (since when has the SEC ever endorsed anything good for college football? Answer: never.)

taken together, in the context of where was written, my statement that you reprinted is clearly in jest - especially since every single thread I have stated the exact opposite.

it was intended to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation, not endorse it..

I'm really sorry that you have comprehension difficulties.

I do not support that position, I have never supported that position, and you know it, and yet here you are in another attempt to cast dispersions on others, which is all that you are capable of.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

I'm not sure anyone would put much stock in the opinion of someone whose first take on the subject was it provided a great opportunity for the players and boosters to cheat.

---

I never ever said that. You're wrong, you're always wrong.

I never said anything about being great for boosters or the players to cheat. Never.

why don't you simply comment on the topic, and stop trying to make others into monsters?

---

Your words:

"Personally, I think this is a good idea, since it allows kids to shop for better NIL deals as the teams continue to up the ante for buying players."

Shopping for an NIL deal is cheating. Cheating by the player for discussing an NIL deal BEFORE signing with a new program. Cheating by a booster or school for offering an NIL deal BEFORE an athlete signs with a new program.

Again, why would anyone take stock in your opinion on this matter? Not only do you not know the rules, you don't even know the meaning of what you say.

---

okay, I did type that joke, but good lord, that was tongue in cheek, just like the following sentence that you conveniently omitted.

the one: "if the SEC is against it, then it's probably good for college football". (since when has the SEC ever endorsed anything good for college football? Answer: never.)

taken together, in the context of where was written, my statement that you reprinted is clearly in jest - especially since every single thread I have stated the exact opposite.

it was intended to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation, not endorse it..

I'm really sorry that you have comprehension difficulties.

I do not support that position, I have never supported that position, and you know it, and yet here you are in another attempt to cast dispersions on others, which is all that you are capable of.

---

Hogwash. I've never cast a dispersion on anyone.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

I'm not sure anyone would put much stock in the opinion of someone whose first take on the subject was it provided a great opportunity for the players and boosters to cheat.

---

I never ever said that. You're wrong, you're always wrong.

I never said anything about being great for boosters or the players to cheat. Never.

why don't you simply comment on the topic, and stop trying to make others into monsters?

---

Your words:

"Personally, I think this is a good idea, since it allows kids to shop for better NIL deals as the teams continue to up the ante for buying players."

Shopping for an NIL deal is cheating. Cheating by the player for discussing an NIL deal BEFORE signing with a new program. Cheating by a booster or school for offering an NIL deal BEFORE an athlete signs with a new program.

Again, why would anyone take stock in your opinion on this matter? Not only do you not know the rules, you don't even know the meaning of what you say.

---

okay, I did type that joke, but good lord, that was tongue in cheek, just like the following sentence that you conveniently omitted.

the one: "if the SEC is against it, then it's probably good for college football". (since when has the SEC ever endorsed anything good for college football? Answer: never.)

taken together, in the context of where was written, my statement that you reprinted is clearly in jest - especially since every single thread I have stated the exact opposite.

it was intended to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation, not endorse it..

I'm really sorry that you have comprehension difficulties.

I do not support that position, I have never supported that position, and you know it, and yet here you are in another attempt to cast dispersions on others, which is all that you are capable of.

---

Hogwash. I've never cast a dispersion on anyone.

---

you just said it was my "opinion", where clearly it is not and was not my opinion, and you left the punchline off the joke in an attempt to discredit me.

you already said your entire purpose for posting on this forum was to discredit (cast dispersions) on other posters.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

I'm not sure anyone would put much stock in the opinion of someone whose first take on the subject was it provided a great opportunity for the players and boosters to cheat.

---

I never ever said that. You're wrong, you're always wrong.

I never said anything about being great for boosters or the players to cheat. Never.

why don't you simply comment on the topic, and stop trying to make others into monsters?

---

Your words:

"Personally, I think this is a good idea, since it allows kids to shop for better NIL deals as the teams continue to up the ante for buying players."

Shopping for an NIL deal is cheating. Cheating by the player for discussing an NIL deal BEFORE signing with a new program. Cheating by a booster or school for offering an NIL deal BEFORE an athlete signs with a new program.

Again, why would anyone take stock in your opinion on this matter? Not only do you not know the rules, you don't even know the meaning of what you say.

---

okay, I did type that joke, but good lord, that was tongue in cheek, just like the following sentence that you conveniently omitted.

the one: "if the SEC is against it, then it's probably good for college football". (since when has the SEC ever endorsed anything good for college football? Answer: never.)

taken together, in the context of where was written, my statement that you reprinted is clearly in jest - especially since every single thread I have stated the exact opposite.

it was intended to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation, not endorse it..

I'm really sorry that you have comprehension difficulties.

I do not support that position, I have never supported that position, and you know it, and yet here you are in another attempt to cast dispersions on others, which is all that you are capable of.

---

Hogwash. I've never cast a dispersion on anyone.

---

you just said it was my "opinion", where clearly it is not and was not my opinion, and you left the punchline off the joke in an attempt to discredit me.

you already said your entire purpose for posting on this forum was to discredit (cast dispersions) on other posters.

---

Hogwash. I've never cast a dispersion in my entire life. Wouldn't know how.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Hogwash. I've never cast a dispersion in my entire life. Wouldn't know how.

---

here, let me repost it for you: "I'm not sure anyone would put much stock in the opinion of someone whose first take on the subject was it provided a great opportunity for the players and boosters to cheat."

Casting Dispersions often misunderstood as 'Casting Aspersions' = making a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone's reputation


oh, wait, I get it, you are making a joke right? you just left off the punch line, right, the part that adds clarity to the comment, right?

I get it now... ha, ha, ha

Oh, oh, oh, I understand now.

'Aspersion' - an attack on the reputation or integrity of someone or something. (Nothing to do with false or misleading charge)

Example: "You're wrong, you're always wrong."

Where have I heard that before?

I think we're done here.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Oh, oh, oh, I understand now.

'Aspersion' - an attack on the reputation or integrity of someone or something. (Nothing to do with false or misleading charge)

Example: "You're wrong, you're always wrong."

Where have I heard that before?

I think we're done here.

---

glad to see that you do not deny your intent on the forum... ridicule of others.

that's all you ever do.

Just heard the most up-to-date stats on the portal. Over the past year, 3,085 athletes have entered the portal. As of Aug 1, of the FBS football players that entered the portal, 46% have not found a home. 46% gambled their $50-100k/year scholarship that another school would invest $50-100/yr on a player that (probably) doesn't have much if any college tape.

Allowing unlimited transfers will not be the friend of the athlete that can't get on the field. If you can't get on the field, you're likely much better off staying at the school that's already agreed to pay for your education, room and board.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Just heard the most up-to-date stats on the portal. Over the past year, 3,085 athletes have entered the portal. As of Aug 1, of the FBS football players that entered the portal, 46% have not found a home. 46% gambled their $50-100k/year scholarship that another school would invest $50-100/yr on a player that (probably) doesn't have much if any college tape.

Allowing unlimited transfers will not be the friend of the athlete that can't get on the field. If you can't get on the field, you're likely much better off staying at the school that's already agreed to pay for your education, room and board.

---

I would agree with that, so why bother to limit transfers and force a kid to sit out.

It should be their choice to risk their future on multiple transfers.

i.e., "we" the NCAA are going to make you suffer more if you aren't happy. "We" the ncca, demand that you stay where you are for your own good!!

Cali & Gumby (& Robert)....as i posted originally ...it is absurd logic to me (given long professional career) that:
1. Me seeking out a better employment opportunity for professional growth would be construed as a 'quitter' mentality
2. That a 3rd party (NCAA) could impose restrictions upon me in pursuit of my goals

gary121853 said:

---

Cali & Gumby (& Robert)....as i posted originally ...it is absurd logic to me (given long professional career) that:
1. Me seeking out a better employment opportunity for professional growth would be construed as a 'quitter' mentality
2. That a 3rd party (NCAA) could impose restrictions upon me in pursuit of my goals

---

First, I don't think using the ability for a person to change employment as a reason for allowing athletes unfettered transfers is valid. If for no other reason, athletes are supposed to be students first. And a multiple transfer rule probably isn't a net positive for the achievement of a college degree given the number of athletes that have given up their scholarship because they're stuck in the portal.

But if you want to go down the employment comparison route, let's at least put it into a more comparable perspective.

How many people are actually willing to (1) quit their job two or more times in 2-4 years, (2) do so without first talking to a perspective employer, (3) forego your current employer paid healthcare benefits and any vacation or other benefit vesting, and (4) run the risk of the the good possibility you are unable to get hired for the rest of your life in your heretofore chosen profession?

I'd guess that population is close to zero.

gary121853 said:

---

Cali & Gumby (& Robert)....as i posted originally ...it is absurd logic to me (given long professional career) that:
1. Me seeking out a better employment opportunity for professional growth would be construed as a 'quitter' mentality
2. That a 3rd party (NCAA) could impose restrictions upon me in pursuit of my goals

---

I agree 100%.