One time transfer rule approved

Anyone can read this board. However, to post messages, you must register.
User avatar
PeteRasche
Cornerstone
Posts: 25083
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by PeteRasche »

I have not read the NCAA's "mission statement" (or whatever documents) to know whether they claim to care about the student-athletes themselves, but in the past they were about themselves and their member institutions - the student-athletes were just a "lucky benefactor" of getting a college education for free. Now, with the NIL lawsuit and all, the NCAA is trying to make it appear they prioritize caring about the student-athletes. But the student-athletes only care about themselves, so the NCAA rule changes aimed at benefiting the athletes are affecting the sports in a likely-unintended way.

The NCAA needs decide if they want:
1. A select few cash cows to make more and more money.
or
2. "Fairness" and a "level playing field" amongst all participating institutions.

Basically every rule they make or change affects the pendulum swing towards one or the other. They can act like they don't see it that way but in many cases it's obvious and in the rest it will become obvious in short time. Years ago I would have thought they wanted #2 - it might even be in their mission statement - because it was sorta part-and-parcel of the whole "amateurism" rules. In the past decade or two, as they make more and more moves that appear to be "for the student-athlete", those moves seem to lean towards #1. On the surface, this latest one certainly does.

Obviously, we will see.
wavedom
President's Circle
Posts: 2658
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by wavedom »

Sophandros wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:20 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:00 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:51 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:42 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:28 am The idea that students as a whole are paying their own way in a way thats different from athletes is laughable. Most of them get some kind of financial aid whether need based or merit based. So how is a student on an academic full ride to Tulane transferring any different than an athlete on scholarship for their talents transferring? Do we get mad if a future Rhodes scholar transfers from Tulane because the academic fit wasn't right for them? Sure it would be nice for us fans if we could lock players in for four years, but that hardly seems fair to the players.

Transferring is also not risk free. For a student they have to navigate transferring credits which may cost more and keep them in school longer. For athletes they have to weigh whether promises of play time from a new coach and a new set of teammates is worth it relative to their goals.
No comparison. Those students aren't on anywhere near a full scholarship that carries stipends, housing , health care and more.
Nope. I went to school with several students who had full rides including housing and were actually being paid to go to school because they received scholarships above the cost of attendance. Healthcare is a differentiator I guess.

But fine let's go with that. What's your suggestion? How would you propose we keep transfers from happening? Or is this just venting for you?
No comparison. We are talking hundreds of athletes on full rides versus a couple of your friends. See the millions across this country with crushing student debt loans. The solution is going back to the hard and fast rule that if you transfer you sit out a year.
I'm not convinced that the one year of sitting out has had an impact on the number of transfers. You still have to have a roster spot on the school you want to transfer to, and in a sport like football you still have to learn a new system, playbook, and gel with a new team. From a coach's perspective, upending your roster like that isn't conducive to long-term success.

I think we should, at the very least, wait and see what happens before we start with the doom and gloom proclamations.
Sitting out a year did for a very long time cut back on transfers.It's only recently that they have started giving out waivers like candy and there has been a noticeable uptick. This latest rule change will open the flood gates.

It's a fan forum where we discuss our program. I know a lot of Tulanians live in a what they believe is a perfect world. That doesn't exist and in the long run it's realistic to expect this to be detrimental to Tulane athletics. Say Pratt continues to develop and Spears proves he really is back. We finish the season and everyone is excited and talking about how in 2022 we have a legit chance to win the conference and nab the NY6 Bowl. Then Pratt and Spears transfer to a P5. We go from looking at selling a bunch of season tickets and having nice sized crowds to everyone saying why bother and the stadium stays empty. I certainly hope that doesn't happen but realistically it could well happen.
There was an extra 9 in that percentage
User avatar
MattK
President's Circle
Posts: 2889
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:30 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by MattK »

Sophandros wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:20 am

I think we should, at the very least, wait and see what happens before we start with the doom and gloom proclamations.
Hi. Welcome to the internet. I see you're new here.
User avatar
Poseidon
President's Circle
Posts: 3878
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:43 pm
Location: Baton Rouge

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by Poseidon »

PeteRasche wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:36 am I have not read the NCAA's "mission statement" (or whatever documents) to know whether they claim to care about the student-athletes themselves, but in the past they were about themselves and their member institutions - the student-athletes were just a "lucky benefactor" of getting a college education for free. Now, with the NIL lawsuit and all, the NCAA is trying to make it appear they prioritize caring about the student-athletes. But the student-athletes only care about themselves, so the NCAA rule changes aimed at benefiting the athletes are affecting the sports in a likely-unintended way.

The NCAA needs decide if they want:
1. A select few cash cows to make more and more money.
or
2. "Fairness" and a "level playing field" amongst all participating institutions.

Basically every rule they make or change affects the pendulum swing towards one or the other. They can act like they don't see it that way but in many cases it's obvious and in the rest it will become obvious in short time. Years ago I would have thought they wanted #2 - it might even be in their mission statement - because it was sorta part-and-parcel of the whole "amateurism" rules. In the past decade or two, as they make more and more moves that appear to be "for the student-athlete", those moves seem to lean towards #1. On the surface, this latest one certainly does.

Obviously, we will see.
They are just lying or in denial. 40 years ago they were in control. They have been steadily losing control since inception of the BCS and the larger television contracts.(Of course you know all of this)

The watershed moment was when individual conferences were allowed to negotiate their own television contracts. I am under the impression that this wasn't a big deal at the time because regional and local broadcast were more prevalent and the NCAA did not see ESPN coming.

To answer your question more directly...What can the NCAA do to change this and? It would be bold but they could say the NCAA FBS television rights and Playoff will be negotiated as one FBS package(all 130 schools) or a schools NCAA membership will be revoked. ESPN and CBS would have to buy the whole FBS as a single package and pay the schools an equal amount. If that happened then the P5 would move to leave the NCAA. The NCAA could then use March Madness and other sports as leverage. The NCAA come back and say well you can remain in the NCAA and we will create a new upper division with its own TV contract and playoff. Those who want to be in that division would have to commit to spending X amount of money on football and pay players x and have x level of facilities. The UCF's of the G5 would be able to say we are willing to commit that much and be included. The MAC and ULM's of the world would remain in the FBS lower division with a different criteria for spending and player compensation they could afford. The lower FBS would have a lower paying tv contract with ESPN to be on ESPN+ and ESPN 2 on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The FBS upper tier would take all 65 power 5 schools and probably 10-15 G5 schools who are willing to commit the resources. They would be at about 80 schools. The lower tier would be at about 50 schools and you would likely see some FCS schools move up to FBS lower tier because they know they could compete for a FBS lower tier championship. So their numbers would swell to 60 or 70. This type of reform is just long overdue. For all of our sakes we hope Tulane would include itself in the upper division.
Quote:The Good - TULANE
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Dishonorable mention - Navy
User avatar
Poseidon
President's Circle
Posts: 3878
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:43 pm
Location: Baton Rouge

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by Poseidon »

wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:58 am
Sophandros wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:20 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:00 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:51 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:42 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:28 am The idea that students as a whole are paying their own way in a way thats different from athletes is laughable. Most of them get some kind of financial aid whether need based or merit based. So how is a student on an academic full ride to Tulane transferring any different than an athlete on scholarship for their talents transferring? Do we get mad if a future Rhodes scholar transfers from Tulane because the academic fit wasn't right for them? Sure it would be nice for us fans if we could lock players in for four years, but that hardly seems fair to the players.

Transferring is also not risk free. For a student they have to navigate transferring credits which may cost more and keep them in school longer. For athletes they have to weigh whether promises of play time from a new coach and a new set of teammates is worth it relative to their goals.
No comparison. Those students aren't on anywhere near a full scholarship that carries stipends, housing , health care and more.
Nope. I went to school with several students who had full rides including housing and were actually being paid to go to school because they received scholarships above the cost of attendance. Healthcare is a differentiator I guess.

But fine let's go with that. What's your suggestion? How would you propose we keep transfers from happening? Or is this just venting for you?
No comparison. We are talking hundreds of athletes on full rides versus a couple of your friends. See the millions across this country with crushing student debt loans. The solution is going back to the hard and fast rule that if you transfer you sit out a year.
I'm not convinced that the one year of sitting out has had an impact on the number of transfers. You still have to have a roster spot on the school you want to transfer to, and in a sport like football you still have to learn a new system, playbook, and gel with a new team. From a coach's perspective, upending your roster like that isn't conducive to long-term success.

I think we should, at the very least, wait and see what happens before we start with the doom and gloom proclamations.
Sitting out a year did for a very long time cut back on transfers.It's only recently that they have started giving out waivers like candy and there has been a noticeable uptick. This latest rule change will open the flood gates.

It's a fan forum where we discuss our program. I know a lot of Tulanians live in a what they believe is a perfect world. That doesn't exist and in the long run it's realistic to expect this to be detrimental to Tulane athletics. Say Pratt continues to develop and Spears proves he really is back. We finish the season and everyone is excited and talking about how in 2022 we have a legit chance to win the conference and nab the NY6 Bowl. Then Pratt and Spears transfer to a P5. We go from looking at selling a bunch of season tickets and having nice sized crowds to everyone saying why bother and the stadium stays empty. I certainly hope that doesn't happen but realistically it could well happen.
Your not wrong, but better college programs prove they are more than a single class of players. In the scenario you created say that does happen. However what if they do leave and what comes behind them isn't the drop off you assert it would be. If TB stays would King to Moore to Losman have been a drop off wins wise. What about Dartez to Converse to Moore to Forte. Memphis has gone through two or three QBs with no disastrous drop-off.
Quote:The Good - TULANE
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Dishonorable mention - Navy
wavedom
President's Circle
Posts: 2658
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by wavedom »

Poseidon wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:20 pm
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:58 am
Sophandros wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:20 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:00 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:51 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:42 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:28 am The idea that students as a whole are paying their own way in a way thats different from athletes is laughable. Most of them get some kind of financial aid whether need based or merit based. So how is a student on an academic full ride to Tulane transferring any different than an athlete on scholarship for their talents transferring? Do we get mad if a future Rhodes scholar transfers from Tulane because the academic fit wasn't right for them? Sure it would be nice for us fans if we could lock players in for four years, but that hardly seems fair to the players.

Transferring is also not risk free. For a student they have to navigate transferring credits which may cost more and keep them in school longer. For athletes they have to weigh whether promises of play time from a new coach and a new set of teammates is worth it relative to their goals.
No comparison. Those students aren't on anywhere near a full scholarship that carries stipends, housing , health care and more.
Nope. I went to school with several students who had full rides including housing and were actually being paid to go to school because they received scholarships above the cost of attendance. Healthcare is a differentiator I guess.

But fine let's go with that. What's your suggestion? How would you propose we keep transfers from happening? Or is this just venting for you?
No comparison. We are talking hundreds of athletes on full rides versus a couple of your friends. See the millions across this country with crushing student debt loans. The solution is going back to the hard and fast rule that if you transfer you sit out a year.
I'm not convinced that the one year of sitting out has had an impact on the number of transfers. You still have to have a roster spot on the school you want to transfer to, and in a sport like football you still have to learn a new system, playbook, and gel with a new team. From a coach's perspective, upending your roster like that isn't conducive to long-term success.

I think we should, at the very least, wait and see what happens before we start with the doom and gloom proclamations.
Sitting out a year did for a very long time cut back on transfers.It's only recently that they have started giving out waivers like candy and there has been a noticeable uptick. This latest rule change will open the flood gates.

It's a fan forum where we discuss our program. I know a lot of Tulanians live in a what they believe is a perfect world. That doesn't exist and in the long run it's realistic to expect this to be detrimental to Tulane athletics. Say Pratt continues to develop and Spears proves he really is back. We finish the season and everyone is excited and talking about how in 2022 we have a legit chance to win the conference and nab the NY6 Bowl. Then Pratt and Spears transfer to a P5. We go from looking at selling a bunch of season tickets and having nice sized crowds to everyone saying why bother and the stadium stays empty. I certainly hope that doesn't happen but realistically it could well happen.
Your not wrong, but better college programs prove they are more than a single class of players. In the scenario you created say that does happen. However what if they do leave and what comes behind them isn't the drop off you assert it would be. If TB stays would King to Moore to Losman have been a drop off wins wise. What about Dartez to Converse to Moore to Forte. Memphis has gone through two or three QBs with no disastrous drop-off.
I think we have to go by who we have now in this day and age when there is such a gap between teams based on P5 v. G5. Our drop off would unfortunately preclude us from those high hopes of a conference championship and NY6 Bowl .
There was an extra 9 in that percentage
User avatar
Poseidon
President's Circle
Posts: 3878
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 8:43 pm
Location: Baton Rouge

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by Poseidon »

wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:34 pm
Poseidon wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:20 pm
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:58 am
Sophandros wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:20 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:00 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:51 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:42 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:28 am The idea that students as a whole are paying their own way in a way thats different from athletes is laughable. Most of them get some kind of financial aid whether need based or merit based. So how is a student on an academic full ride to Tulane transferring any different than an athlete on scholarship for their talents transferring? Do we get mad if a future Rhodes scholar transfers from Tulane because the academic fit wasn't right for them? Sure it would be nice for us fans if we could lock players in for four years, but that hardly seems fair to the players.

Transferring is also not risk free. For a student they have to navigate transferring credits which may cost more and keep them in school longer. For athletes they have to weigh whether promises of play time from a new coach and a new set of teammates is worth it relative to their goals.
No comparison. Those students aren't on anywhere near a full scholarship that carries stipends, housing , health care and more.
Nope. I went to school with several students who had full rides including housing and were actually being paid to go to school because they received scholarships above the cost of attendance. Healthcare is a differentiator I guess.

But fine let's go with that. What's your suggestion? How would you propose we keep transfers from happening? Or is this just venting for you?
No comparison. We are talking hundreds of athletes on full rides versus a couple of your friends. See the millions across this country with crushing student debt loans. The solution is going back to the hard and fast rule that if you transfer you sit out a year.
I'm not convinced that the one year of sitting out has had an impact on the number of transfers. You still have to have a roster spot on the school you want to transfer to, and in a sport like football you still have to learn a new system, playbook, and gel with a new team. From a coach's perspective, upending your roster like that isn't conducive to long-term success.

I think we should, at the very least, wait and see what happens before we start with the doom and gloom proclamations.
Sitting out a year did for a very long time cut back on transfers.It's only recently that they have started giving out waivers like candy and there has been a noticeable uptick. This latest rule change will open the flood gates.

It's a fan forum where we discuss our program. I know a lot of Tulanians live in a what they believe is a perfect world. That doesn't exist and in the long run it's realistic to expect this to be detrimental to Tulane athletics. Say Pratt continues to develop and Spears proves he really is back. We finish the season and everyone is excited and talking about how in 2022 we have a legit chance to win the conference and nab the NY6 Bowl. Then Pratt and Spears transfer to a P5. We go from looking at selling a bunch of season tickets and having nice sized crowds to everyone saying why bother and the stadium stays empty. I certainly hope that doesn't happen but realistically it could well happen.
Your not wrong, but better college programs prove they are more than a single class of players. In the scenario you created say that does happen. However what if they do leave and what comes behind them isn't the drop off you assert it would be. If TB stays would King to Moore to Losman have been a drop off wins wise. What about Dartez to Converse to Moore to Forte. Memphis has gone through two or three QBs with no disastrous drop-off.
I think we have to go by who we have now in this day and age when there is such a gap between teams based on P5 v. G5. Our drop off would unfortunately preclude us from those high hopes of a conference championship and NY6 Bowl .
Fair. But who thought Tennessee would win the NC the year after they lost Peyton Manning.
Quote:The Good - TULANE
The Bad - LSU
THe Ugly - USM
Dishonorable mention - Navy
User avatar
Sophandros
Regent's Circle
Posts: 6628
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:33 pm
Location: The Nerdy Dirty South
Contact:

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by Sophandros »

wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:58 am
Sophandros wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:20 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:00 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:51 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:42 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:28 am The idea that students as a whole are paying their own way in a way thats different from athletes is laughable. Most of them get some kind of financial aid whether need based or merit based. So how is a student on an academic full ride to Tulane transferring any different than an athlete on scholarship for their talents transferring? Do we get mad if a future Rhodes scholar transfers from Tulane because the academic fit wasn't right for them? Sure it would be nice for us fans if we could lock players in for four years, but that hardly seems fair to the players.

Transferring is also not risk free. For a student they have to navigate transferring credits which may cost more and keep them in school longer. For athletes they have to weigh whether promises of play time from a new coach and a new set of teammates is worth it relative to their goals.
No comparison. Those students aren't on anywhere near a full scholarship that carries stipends, housing , health care and more.
Nope. I went to school with several students who had full rides including housing and were actually being paid to go to school because they received scholarships above the cost of attendance. Healthcare is a differentiator I guess.

But fine let's go with that. What's your suggestion? How would you propose we keep transfers from happening? Or is this just venting for you?
No comparison. We are talking hundreds of athletes on full rides versus a couple of your friends. See the millions across this country with crushing student debt loans. The solution is going back to the hard and fast rule that if you transfer you sit out a year.
I'm not convinced that the one year of sitting out has had an impact on the number of transfers. You still have to have a roster spot on the school you want to transfer to, and in a sport like football you still have to learn a new system, playbook, and gel with a new team. From a coach's perspective, upending your roster like that isn't conducive to long-term success.

I think we should, at the very least, wait and see what happens before we start with the doom and gloom proclamations.
Sitting out a year did for a very long time cut back on transfers.It's only recently that they have started giving out waivers like candy and there has been a noticeable uptick. This latest rule change will open the flood gates.

It's a fan forum where we discuss our program. I know a lot of Tulanians live in a what they believe is a perfect world. That doesn't exist and in the long run it's realistic to expect this to be detrimental to Tulane athletics. Say Pratt continues to develop and Spears proves he really is back. We finish the season and everyone is excited and talking about how in 2022 we have a legit chance to win the conference and nab the NY6 Bowl. Then Pratt and Spears transfer to a P5. We go from looking at selling a bunch of season tickets and having nice sized crowds to everyone saying why bother and the stadium stays empty. I certainly hope that doesn't happen but realistically it could well happen.
I think you overstate our level of exposure, and you're forgetting about other pieces of legislation which may put Tulane in a better position to recruit and retain athletes, such as NLI and expanded financial benefits for student-athletes.

Again, as I said, let's wait and see what happens before we start with the doom and gloom proclamations. Let's base our analyses on data rather than fear.
Sports Talk radio and most sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.
User avatar
Private Joker
Navigator Level
Posts: 1419
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:50 pm
Location: Bainbridge Island USA

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by Private Joker »

zmanno wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:22 pm I fear power 5 will poach other conferences turning them into a farm system. Football is a real concern.
While I'm sure this poaching will happen from time to time -- see D'Eriq King going from Houston to Miami -- on balance it may end up being good for schools like Tulane. Many guys riding the pine in more successful programs can be quality D-1 players, and get schools like us to bowl games. This is especially true for QBs, because only one guy can start at a school.
wavedom
President's Circle
Posts: 2658
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by wavedom »

Poseidon wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:42 pm
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:34 pm
Poseidon wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:20 pm
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:58 am
Sophandros wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:20 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:00 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:51 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:42 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:28 am The idea that students as a whole are paying their own way in a way thats different from athletes is laughable. Most of them get some kind of financial aid whether need based or merit based. So how is a student on an academic full ride to Tulane transferring any different than an athlete on scholarship for their talents transferring? Do we get mad if a future Rhodes scholar transfers from Tulane because the academic fit wasn't right for them? Sure it would be nice for us fans if we could lock players in for four years, but that hardly seems fair to the players.

Transferring is also not risk free. For a student they have to navigate transferring credits which may cost more and keep them in school longer. For athletes they have to weigh whether promises of play time from a new coach and a new set of teammates is worth it relative to their goals.
No comparison. Those students aren't on anywhere near a full scholarship that carries stipends, housing , health care and more.
Nope. I went to school with several students who had full rides including housing and were actually being paid to go to school because they received scholarships above the cost of attendance. Healthcare is a differentiator I guess.

But fine let's go with that. What's your suggestion? How would you propose we keep transfers from happening? Or is this just venting for you?
No comparison. We are talking hundreds of athletes on full rides versus a couple of your friends. See the millions across this country with crushing student debt loans. The solution is going back to the hard and fast rule that if you transfer you sit out a year.
I'm not convinced that the one year of sitting out has had an impact on the number of transfers. You still have to have a roster spot on the school you want to transfer to, and in a sport like football you still have to learn a new system, playbook, and gel with a new team. From a coach's perspective, upending your roster like that isn't conducive to long-term success.

I think we should, at the very least, wait and see what happens before we start with the doom and gloom proclamations.
Sitting out a year did for a very long time cut back on transfers.It's only recently that they have started giving out waivers like candy and there has been a noticeable uptick. This latest rule change will open the flood gates.

It's a fan forum where we discuss our program. I know a lot of Tulanians live in a what they believe is a perfect world. That doesn't exist and in the long run it's realistic to expect this to be detrimental to Tulane athletics. Say Pratt continues to develop and Spears proves he really is back. We finish the season and everyone is excited and talking about how in 2022 we have a legit chance to win the conference and nab the NY6 Bowl. Then Pratt and Spears transfer to a P5. We go from looking at selling a bunch of season tickets and having nice sized crowds to everyone saying why bother and the stadium stays empty. I certainly hope that doesn't happen but realistically it could well happen.
Your not wrong, but better college programs prove they are more than a single class of players. In the scenario you created say that does happen. However what if they do leave and what comes behind them isn't the drop off you assert it would be. If TB stays would King to Moore to Losman have been a drop off wins wise. What about Dartez to Converse to Moore to Forte. Memphis has gone through two or three QBs with no disastrous drop-off.
I think we have to go by who we have now in this day and age when there is such a gap between teams based on P5 v. G5. Our drop off would unfortunately preclude us from those high hopes of a conference championship and NY6 Bowl .
Fair. But who thought Tennessee would win the NC the year after they lost Peyton Manning.
All Tennessee fans. Big difference in our programs. They had a ton of talent back then throughout their team. We are more reliant on some star players at key positions to help us win anything noteworthy.
Last edited by wavedom on Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There was an extra 9 in that percentage
ml wave
Emerald Circle
Posts: 11654
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by ml wave »

wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:46 am
ml wave wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:18 am For the woe is me crowd, players that have graduated have had the ability to transfer without sitting out for a number of years. Please describe the net damage (factoring both transfers in and out) that this has caused the Tulane program.
The grad transfer rule was there but not used till someone stumbled on it 5 or so years ago. Completely different form the free agency that will now ensue with the new rule. People can spout off all they want now but as usual when it turns out bad they won't be anywhere to be found.
It's not different at all. It's transferring without having to sit out, apples to apples. Sure there's a smaller pool of eligible players because you have to graduate first, but there's significant enough numbers transferring every year and it hasn't hurt us at all in the aggregate.
ml wave
Emerald Circle
Posts: 11654
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by ml wave »

wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:45 am
ml wave wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:16 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:13 am
MattK wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:05 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:58 am Other students who can transfer as much as they want are just that- students paying their own way. As to student-athletes they are on scholarship and made a commitment to the program who relied on that so as not to recruit someone else. This isn't professional sports. This free agency will end up really bad for the two major sports and will drive fans of the lesser schools away.
Don't the schools only commit one year scholarships to the students?
Yes but the custom has been that they commit that scholarship to the player for 4-5 years. name a player we ever told we are not renewing your scholarship after one year. But hey if you're in favor of the new rule then by all means that custom should be tossed aside and let's start chasing other players that are better.
We run players off all the time, as does basically every school.
Name one player who we told you aren't good enough so we are not renewing your scholarship? You can't. Has a staff indicated a player won't likely be getting playing time? Yes. But they have left the decision to the player to stay on scholarship at Tulane or transfer.
Running players off is not the same as not renewing their scholarship but it has the same effective end result of not being a 4 year commitment.
wavedom
President's Circle
Posts: 2658
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by wavedom »

Sophandros wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:07 pm
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:58 am
Sophandros wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:20 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:00 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:51 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:42 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:28 am The idea that students as a whole are paying their own way in a way thats different from athletes is laughable. Most of them get some kind of financial aid whether need based or merit based. So how is a student on an academic full ride to Tulane transferring any different than an athlete on scholarship for their talents transferring? Do we get mad if a future Rhodes scholar transfers from Tulane because the academic fit wasn't right for them? Sure it would be nice for us fans if we could lock players in for four years, but that hardly seems fair to the players.

Transferring is also not risk free. For a student they have to navigate transferring credits which may cost more and keep them in school longer. For athletes they have to weigh whether promises of play time from a new coach and a new set of teammates is worth it relative to their goals.
No comparison. Those students aren't on anywhere near a full scholarship that carries stipends, housing , health care and more.
Nope. I went to school with several students who had full rides including housing and were actually being paid to go to school because they received scholarships above the cost of attendance. Healthcare is a differentiator I guess.

But fine let's go with that. What's your suggestion? How would you propose we keep transfers from happening? Or is this just venting for you?
No comparison. We are talking hundreds of athletes on full rides versus a couple of your friends. See the millions across this country with crushing student debt loans. The solution is going back to the hard and fast rule that if you transfer you sit out a year.
I'm not convinced that the one year of sitting out has had an impact on the number of transfers. You still have to have a roster spot on the school you want to transfer to, and in a sport like football you still have to learn a new system, playbook, and gel with a new team. From a coach's perspective, upending your roster like that isn't conducive to long-term success.

I think we should, at the very least, wait and see what happens before we start with the doom and gloom proclamations.
Sitting out a year did for a very long time cut back on transfers.It's only recently that they have started giving out waivers like candy and there has been a noticeable uptick. This latest rule change will open the flood gates.

It's a fan forum where we discuss our program. I know a lot of Tulanians live in a what they believe is a perfect world. That doesn't exist and in the long run it's realistic to expect this to be detrimental to Tulane athletics. Say Pratt continues to develop and Spears proves he really is back. We finish the season and everyone is excited and talking about how in 2022 we have a legit chance to win the conference and nab the NY6 Bowl. Then Pratt and Spears transfer to a P5. We go from looking at selling a bunch of season tickets and having nice sized crowds to everyone saying why bother and the stadium stays empty. I certainly hope that doesn't happen but realistically it could well happen.
I think you overstate our level of exposure, and you're forgetting about other pieces of legislation which may put Tulane in a better position to recruit and retain athletes, such as NLI and expanded financial benefits for student-athletes.

Again, as I said, let's wait and see what happens before we start with the doom and gloom proclamations. Let's base our analyses on data rather than fear.
Again we are discussing the issue because that's what you do on fan forums. NLI is just one more detriment to our program. We don't have the number of big money people with a a great interest in our program to match up with the big boys. It's just one more thing in their favor.
There was an extra 9 in that percentage
wavedom
President's Circle
Posts: 2658
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by wavedom »

ml wave wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:08 pm
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:46 am
ml wave wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:18 am For the woe is me crowd, players that have graduated have had the ability to transfer without sitting out for a number of years. Please describe the net damage (factoring both transfers in and out) that this has caused the Tulane program.
The grad transfer rule was there but not used till someone stumbled on it 5 or so years ago. Completely different form the free agency that will now ensue with the new rule. People can spout off all they want now but as usual when it turns out bad they won't be anywhere to be found.
It's not different at all. It's transferring without having to sit out, apples to apples. Sure there's a smaller pool of eligible players because you have to graduate first, but there's significant enough numbers transferring every year and it hasn't hurt us at all in the aggregate.
That's because we don't have many graduate players that were that good. This is definitely different. Our younger players that were missed in recruiting will now be exposed as being capable of being a good P5 player.
There was an extra 9 in that percentage
wavedom
President's Circle
Posts: 2658
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by wavedom »

ml wave wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:09 pm
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:45 am
ml wave wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:16 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:13 am
MattK wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:05 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:58 am Other students who can transfer as much as they want are just that- students paying their own way. As to student-athletes they are on scholarship and made a commitment to the program who relied on that so as not to recruit someone else. This isn't professional sports. This free agency will end up really bad for the two major sports and will drive fans of the lesser schools away.
Don't the schools only commit one year scholarships to the students?
Yes but the custom has been that they commit that scholarship to the player for 4-5 years. name a player we ever told we are not renewing your scholarship after one year. But hey if you're in favor of the new rule then by all means that custom should be tossed aside and let's start chasing other players that are better.
We run players off all the time, as does basically every school.
Name one player who we told you aren't good enough so we are not renewing your scholarship? You can't. Has a staff indicated a player won't likely be getting playing time? Yes. But they have left the decision to the player to stay on scholarship at Tulane or transfer.
Running players off is not the same as not renewing their scholarship but it has the same effective end result of not being a 4 year commitment.
You can't name anyone whose scholarship we pulled. Just because we may have made it clear they won't play here we've let them keep their scholarships. Big difference.
There was an extra 9 in that percentage
ml wave
Emerald Circle
Posts: 11654
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by ml wave »

wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:16 pm
ml wave wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:09 pm
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:45 am
ml wave wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:16 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:13 am
MattK wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:05 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:58 am Other students who can transfer as much as they want are just that- students paying their own way. As to student-athletes they are on scholarship and made a commitment to the program who relied on that so as not to recruit someone else. This isn't professional sports. This free agency will end up really bad for the two major sports and will drive fans of the lesser schools away.
Don't the schools only commit one year scholarships to the students?
Yes but the custom has been that they commit that scholarship to the player for 4-5 years. name a player we ever told we are not renewing your scholarship after one year. But hey if you're in favor of the new rule then by all means that custom should be tossed aside and let's start chasing other players that are better.
We run players off all the time, as does basically every school.
Name one player who we told you aren't good enough so we are not renewing your scholarship? You can't. Has a staff indicated a player won't likely be getting playing time? Yes. But they have left the decision to the player to stay on scholarship at Tulane or transfer.
Running players off is not the same as not renewing their scholarship but it has the same effective end result of not being a 4 year commitment.
You can't name anyone whose scholarship we pulled. Just because we may have made it clear they won't play here we've let them keep their scholarships. Big difference.
Semantically, maybe. But what you're saying is that it's ok for Tulane to tell a kid "if you want to play you should transfer" but not ok for a kid to say "if I want to play I should transfer". It's intellectually dishonest.
User avatar
tulaneoutlaw
President's Circle
Posts: 4878
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Greeneville, TN

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by tulaneoutlaw »

Clipping this for brevity and on phone so hard to do that and quote. "NLI I'd just one more thing in their favor." Who is they wavedom? Some schools we are so far behind that the added advantage of NLI will only result in a marginal increase in their lead over us. We aren't catching Alabama right now NLI or not. But I would argue it might give us a chance to catch up with Wake and Duke, who we aren't catching right now.. It certainly shouldn't let Syracuse and Boston College pull farther ahead. If that happens, our AD and athletics staff haven't done their jobs. So if the goal is competing for a national title, then yeah NLI is a nail in the coffin. If it's gaining ground in some of those with other built in advantages, I think it can be done if we play our cards right. It's not like we have the room under the current P5 G5 structure to really make a leap upward.
wavedom
President's Circle
Posts: 2658
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by wavedom »

ml wave wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:25 pm
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:16 pm
ml wave wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:09 pm
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:45 am
ml wave wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:16 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:13 am
MattK wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:05 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:58 am Other students who can transfer as much as they want are just that- students paying their own way. As to student-athletes they are on scholarship and made a commitment to the program who relied on that so as not to recruit someone else. This isn't professional sports. This free agency will end up really bad for the two major sports and will drive fans of the lesser schools away.
Don't the schools only commit one year scholarships to the students?
Yes but the custom has been that they commit that scholarship to the player for 4-5 years. name a player we ever told we are not renewing your scholarship after one year. But hey if you're in favor of the new rule then by all means that custom should be tossed aside and let's start chasing other players that are better.
We run players off all the time, as does basically every school.
Name one player who we told you aren't good enough so we are not renewing your scholarship? You can't. Has a staff indicated a player won't likely be getting playing time? Yes. But they have left the decision to the player to stay on scholarship at Tulane or transfer.
Running players off is not the same as not renewing their scholarship but it has the same effective end result of not being a 4 year commitment.
You can't name anyone whose scholarship we pulled. Just because we may have made it clear they won't play here we've let them keep their scholarships. Big difference.
Semantically, maybe. But what you're saying is that it's ok for Tulane to tell a kid "if you want to play you should transfer" but not ok for a kid to say "if I want to play I should transfer". It's intellectually dishonest.
I never said it wasn’t ok to transfer. They’ve always had that right. I just said the rule should still be that you have to sit out. We’ve never taken a scholarship away just because someone wasn’t up to snuff.
There was an extra 9 in that percentage
wavedom
President's Circle
Posts: 2658
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by wavedom »

tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:42 pm Clipping this for brevity and on phone so hard to do that and quote. "NLI I'd just one more thing in their favor." Who is they wavedom? Some schools we are so far behind that the added advantage of NLI will only result in a marginal increase in their lead over us. We aren't catching Alabama right now NLI or not. But I would argue it might give us a chance to catch up with Wake and Duke, who we aren't catching right now.. It certainly shouldn't let Syracuse and Boston College pull farther ahead. If that happens, our AD and athletics staff haven't done their jobs. So if the goal is competing for a national title, then yeah NLI is a nail in the coffin. If it's gaining ground in some of those with other built in advantages, I think it can be done if we play our cards right. It's not like we have the room under the current P5 G5 structure to really make a leap upward.
Even the Wake Forest and Duke’s team of the world will gain more on us than they already are. You’re going to be hard pressed to find anyone here to use Tulane players NLI for advertising purposes to any meaningful degree.
There was an extra 9 in that percentage
User avatar
tulaneoutlaw
President's Circle
Posts: 4878
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Greeneville, TN

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by tulaneoutlaw »

wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:13 pm
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:42 pm Clipping this for brevity and on phone so hard to do that and quote. "NLI I'd just one more thing in their favor." Who is they wavedom? Some schools we are so far behind that the added advantage of NLI will only result in a marginal increase in their lead over us. We aren't catching Alabama right now NLI or not. But I would argue it might give us a chance to catch up with Wake and Duke, who we aren't catching right now.. It certainly shouldn't let Syracuse and Boston College pull farther ahead. If that happens, our AD and athletics staff haven't done their jobs. So if the goal is competing for a national title, then yeah NLI is a nail in the coffin. If it's gaining ground in some of those with other built in advantages, I think it can be done if we play our cards right. It's not like we have the room under the current P5 G5 structure to really make a leap upward.
Even the Wake Forest and Duke’s team of the world will gain more on us than they already are. You’re going to be hard pressed to find anyone here to use Tulane players NLI for advertising purposes to any meaningful degree.
So is this rule just all bad for Tulane and good for everybody else? Is there anybody in your mind who won't benefit more from this than us? I'm legitimately asking.. Our AD will have the job of finding people and connections to spend nli dollars. Those may have to be cultivated. But we are in a pretty decent sized city and we do have alums with some money. Maybe there's no hope but I think there could be.
wavedom
President's Circle
Posts: 2658
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by wavedom »

Just discussing each issue brought up by others. Unfortunately the many poor decisions made by Tulane over the decades put us in this position. I’m sure we’ll do better than Sunbelt and MAC schools. Hope that makes you feel better.
There was an extra 9 in that percentage
User avatar
tulaneoutlaw
President's Circle
Posts: 4878
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:49 pm
Location: Greeneville, TN

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by tulaneoutlaw »

wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:05 pm Just discussing each issue brought up by others. Unfortunately the many poor decisions made by Tulane over the decades put us in this position. I’m sure we’ll do better than Sunbelt and MAC schools. Hope that makes you feel better.
It's not about me feeling better, thought your concern for my well being is noted. The rule is coming, I'm just thinking about what could happen. I was genuinely interested in your opinion, even if I don't agree. You think we will do worse than our conference mates then? Cinci, Houston, SMU, ECU, etc.?
wavedom
President's Circle
Posts: 2658
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by wavedom »

In conference I think Cincy, UCF, Memphis and Houston will do better. As to the rest probably no noticeable difference. Believe I hope it turns out much differently for us.
There was an extra 9 in that percentage
User avatar
PeteRasche
Cornerstone
Posts: 25083
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by PeteRasche »

I think it's been shown that most of our conference mates have more money available than us. Tulsa and ECU might be the exceptions. UCF, Memphis, and Houston seem to be swimming in money. Cincinnati isn't necessarily, but they seem to find funding for athletics projects when they need to (they dumped a boatload into their athletics complex in the early 00s and it got them in the Big East, and they've been making upgrades ever since). SMU has money as well (at least it appears that way). I have no idea about Temple and unfortunately TUPF isn't here to fill us in.
User avatar
Sophandros
Regent's Circle
Posts: 6628
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:33 pm
Location: The Nerdy Dirty South
Contact:

Re: One time transfer rule approved

Post by Sophandros »

wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:10 pm
Sophandros wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:07 pm
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:58 am
Sophandros wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 11:20 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 10:00 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:51 am
wavedom wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:42 am
tulaneoutlaw wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:28 am The idea that students as a whole are paying their own way in a way thats different from athletes is laughable. Most of them get some kind of financial aid whether need based or merit based. So how is a student on an academic full ride to Tulane transferring any different than an athlete on scholarship for their talents transferring? Do we get mad if a future Rhodes scholar transfers from Tulane because the academic fit wasn't right for them? Sure it would be nice for us fans if we could lock players in for four years, but that hardly seems fair to the players.

Transferring is also not risk free. For a student they have to navigate transferring credits which may cost more and keep them in school longer. For athletes they have to weigh whether promises of play time from a new coach and a new set of teammates is worth it relative to their goals.
No comparison. Those students aren't on anywhere near a full scholarship that carries stipends, housing , health care and more.
Nope. I went to school with several students who had full rides including housing and were actually being paid to go to school because they received scholarships above the cost of attendance. Healthcare is a differentiator I guess.

But fine let's go with that. What's your suggestion? How would you propose we keep transfers from happening? Or is this just venting for you?
No comparison. We are talking hundreds of athletes on full rides versus a couple of your friends. See the millions across this country with crushing student debt loans. The solution is going back to the hard and fast rule that if you transfer you sit out a year.
I'm not convinced that the one year of sitting out has had an impact on the number of transfers. You still have to have a roster spot on the school you want to transfer to, and in a sport like football you still have to learn a new system, playbook, and gel with a new team. From a coach's perspective, upending your roster like that isn't conducive to long-term success.

I think we should, at the very least, wait and see what happens before we start with the doom and gloom proclamations.
Sitting out a year did for a very long time cut back on transfers.It's only recently that they have started giving out waivers like candy and there has been a noticeable uptick. This latest rule change will open the flood gates.

It's a fan forum where we discuss our program. I know a lot of Tulanians live in a what they believe is a perfect world. That doesn't exist and in the long run it's realistic to expect this to be detrimental to Tulane athletics. Say Pratt continues to develop and Spears proves he really is back. We finish the season and everyone is excited and talking about how in 2022 we have a legit chance to win the conference and nab the NY6 Bowl. Then Pratt and Spears transfer to a P5. We go from looking at selling a bunch of season tickets and having nice sized crowds to everyone saying why bother and the stadium stays empty. I certainly hope that doesn't happen but realistically it could well happen.
I think you overstate our level of exposure, and you're forgetting about other pieces of legislation which may put Tulane in a better position to recruit and retain athletes, such as NLI and expanded financial benefits for student-athletes.

Again, as I said, let's wait and see what happens before we start with the doom and gloom proclamations. Let's base our analyses on data rather than fear.
Again we are discussing the issue because that's what you do on fan forums. NLI is just one more detriment to our program. We don't have the number of big money people with a a great interest in our program to match up with the big boys. It's just one more thing in their favor.
We have an NFL market with alumni and donors from three NFL teams and a Premier League team. We have the movie industry. We have an international alumni base with CEOs from all over the world.



But keep boxing yourself in by thinking small.
Sports Talk radio and most sports message boards are the killing fields of intellectual discourse.
Post Reply