One time transfer rule approved

[PeteRasche]

Pratt didnt transfer and hew as acclaimed by many sites as a top freshman as well. Do we give CWF enough credit for that.

This is more cynicism than my normally-cynical self even posts, but call me in two or three years if he's still our QB. If Pratt tears it up this year, is first or second team all conference, makes an O'Brien shortlist, etc., but Tulane goes 6-6 or 7-5 because of a bad defense and a tough schedule... or even worse, we go 9-3 and STILL only play in some Podunk Bowl against someone who came in second in the Sun Belt or something... you don't think he's going to be fielding calls from every single good P5 program that needs a QB? Every. Single. One. Heck, there's one team that has made a living out of bringing in talented transfer QBs and making them look like (or become) Heisman winners, and guess what, Pratt will be auditioning for them live in our first game.

[Poseidon]

I could definitely see that. Especially if we change OC in couple of years. He transferred in high schooll along the same line.

If so then we go to the other QBs on our roster and use Pratts success as a recruiting tool.

We want to make Tulane a place where when a coach leaves other coaches want to come because they believe they can succeed. We want players to feel the same and our hs recruiting and transfer recruitng should improve also.

If we are losing our guys to starting postions on the blue bloods then we are doing somehting right. The fear is we lose guys to Miss Sts, Dukes, and Virginia's of the world. If we keep winning and have hungry coaches then we should be able to avoid that.

Back to the Jordan leaving for State thing. The concensus in this board is LS is at best just treading water or clinging a raft of previous success. If our football program was doing the same then Pratt would be outta here. However the football program is being run better than now than at any other point in my lifetime. If not wading through years of archaic offense, badd pass defense, and sub par qb play our recrod would relfect this IMO.

[GSx]

Not every player will jump if a P5 smiles at them. And we're toward the top of the G5 food chain, so we should benefit some as well. I figure it will be a wash for us.

Indeed, Jordan is not an example of the concern of the open transfer rule. She was a major recruit, with all sorts of offers, who would have been welcomed by Miss State (and lots of others) out of high school. I don't know why she left; but it's easy to surmise a lot of reasons. And the activities since she left just reinforce those reasons and reinforce my call for "our fearless leader" Lisa Stockton to do the right thing and resign.

[wavedom]

The players they lose for the most part will be because they couldn't cut it as they were overrated. The players they pick up will be players who were underrated and have proven they can play at the P5 level.

This

Like Joe Burrow and Justin McMillan.

There's always exception to the rule but this won't be good overall for Tulane and other G5's. As to McMillan he doesn't belong in that category with Burrow. Not even close.

Hey were bith transfers that "couldnt cut it" and the schools they went to had to deal with getting a player who couldnt cut it. Were tthey not both good for the schools that took them,? They are in the same category if not the caliber player.

You have to prove the rule before its a rule.

McMillan was not a good D-1n QB. He could perform ok when playing a team with a bad D. When facing a defense with a pulse he wasn't up to it. Low bar syndrome there. The rule is there for all to see. How many times have we had people posting with an excitement when we get a someone from FSU, Oklahoma and the such and then nothing. As time goes on this will prove detrimental to our program.

Still digging deeper on your take that Banks was better than McMillan ?

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

[waverider]

Pratt didnt transfer and hew as acclaimed by many sites as a top freshman as well. Do we give CWF enough credit for that.

This is more cynicism than my normally-cynical self even posts, but call me in two or three years if he's still our QB. If Pratt tears it up this year, is first or second team all conference, makes an O'Brien shortlist, etc., but Tulane goes 6-6 or 7-5 because of a bad defense and a tough schedule... or even worse, we go 9-3 and STILL only play in some Podunk Bowl against someone who came in second in the Sun Belt or something... you don't think he's going to be fielding calls from every single good P5 program that needs a QB? Every. Single. One. Heck, there's one team that has made a living out of bringing in talented transfer QBs and making them look like (or become) Heisman winners, and guess what, Pratt will be auditioning for them live in our first game.

One thing playing in our favor is that there are only so many P5 schools that he could go to and get the same level of education.

[Bham Wave]

At least we have a coach who has already been working the transfer angle for 5 years. Has he hasn't hit a home run with all of them but he has filled spots of need and some have made big contributions. Fritz certainly will not be starting from scratch with this new rule.

As always we will have to see about the bunch this year but from Spring reports they all look to contribute one way or another.

[tulaneoutlaw]

I'm not sure what the alternative to this rule would be. General opinion has been pushing in this direction for awhile so it's hard for me to see a world in which the NCAA or any other governing body is really able to clamp down and "stop" free transfers from happening. And again, this is a net good for the players; every other student is able to transfer, so it seems very disingenuous to call them "student-athletes" and not allow some semblance of free movement.

We are already waaay behind the Alabamas and Oklahomas of the world, so to me this really doesn't change that equation. If they poach a top athlete, as much as that sucks, they'd still just be waaay ahead. Where I would be concerned is if the best G5 players are regularly being raided by the mid and lower tier of P5 programs. If Duke, Wake Forest, Kansas, Kentucky, Arizona, etc. are regularly poaching stud players from the AAC, MWC, Sun Belt and others, then yes, this may turn into a bigger issue. In the meantime, players like Garrett Gilbert, Shane Buechele, and Brady White, who didn't pan out at the highest level, are certainly welcome to have stellar careers at the G5 level.

[wavedom]

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.

[MattK]

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?

[wavedom]

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.

[ml wave]

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.

[ml wave]

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.

[tulaneoutlaw]

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.

[Poseidon]

One negative trade off from a players perspective that no one mentions is it is no fun when a coach tells a player "your good, your next in line when so and so graduates so stay here" and the the coach reels in a transfer from another school and favors them because they have a "shiny new toy" mentality. I don't think CWF does this much, but others do and will do even more. How does this benefit the players? Particularly the ones who stay and are really invested in something more than just football...you know school(relationships with professors and mutual investment built within their college/department).

[wavedom]

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.

[wavedom]

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.

[wavedom]

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.

[tulaneoutlaw]

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?

[GretnaGrn]

Not every player will jump if a P5 smiles at them. And we're toward the top of the G5 food chain, so we should benefit some as well. I figure it will be a wash for us.

Indeed, Jordan is not an example of the concern of the open transfer rule. She was a major recruit, with all sorts of offers, who would have been welcomed by Miss State (and lots of others) out of high school. I don't know why she left; but it's easy to surmise a lot of reasons. And the activities since she left just reinforce those reasons and reinforce my call for "our fearless leader" Lisa Stockton to do the right thing and resign.

This. Jordan could have gone to Mississippi State out of high school. She got here and didn't like what she saw; what she said she didn't like (which could admittedly not be the whole story) is not believing we would be making the NCAA tournament.

[PeteRasche]

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?

If everyone followed Tulane's academic rating and wanted us to succeed against other schools so that maybe we'd get admitted to a better "academic league" where we'd literally get tens of millions more dollars per year just for being in it, then I bet people WOULD be upset if we lost a potential Rhodes scholar to some other school.

In case you missed what I'm doing there^^^^^, I'm saying this is apples and oranges.

[wavedom]

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.

[tulaneoutlaw]

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.

Ok. Not going to happen. So I guess let's give up then.

[tulaneoutlaw]

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?

If everyone followed Tulane's academic rating and wanted us to succeed against other schools so that maybe we'd get admitted to a better "academic league" where we'd literally get tens of millions more dollars per year just for being in it, then I bet people WOULD be upset if we lost a potential Rhodes scholar to some other school.

In case you missed what I'm doing there^^^^^, I'm saying this is apples and oranges.

No I get it. And I get the arguments for athletes being different than regular students. I just don't agree that there is no comparison. If you restrict movement of athletes how are you compensating them for the loss of freedom? In the past there was no compensation beyond they got to keep a scholarship and, more lately, ancillary benefits at a place they weren't happy. I don't think that's fair to the player even if it does hurt the program or fan base.

[wavedom]

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.

Ok. Not going to happen. So I guess let's give up then.

Quitter.

[Sophandros]

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.