B10 supports 1 time transfer rule

[MT01]

That might be partially true. The sit out a year rule applies to 5 sports: football, both basketballs, baseball, & hockey. I don’t know how many total sports there are, both men & women, but it has to be more than 20.
Under your theory, the NCAA only cares about the welfare of athletes playing those sports and not the others.
We lost a golf coach 2 years ago to UT and he took 2-3 kids with him. They did NOT have to sit out.

That's a fair view. Hypocrisy is certainly something that has plagued the NCAA over the years.

That said, you have to look at when by-laws related to this went into effect. Many years before big time money and greed entered into the college athletics hierarchy.

So, let's be honest for a moment. Over time, as TV revenue changed the dynamics for college football/basketball, obviously players became valuable properties for universities so losing them to transfer just because their star got disenfranchised for whatever reason was a motivating factor to maintain this rule. I don't think that's lost on anyone. I don't know this for sure, but if you go back to the 70's when the NCAA basically redid everything were the Olympic sports a concern for them in this regard? No, of course not. Not that they didn't care about the welfare of the kids in those sports, but that they just didn't see the transfer issue as big of a deal nor as likely in those sports. Again, you have to go decades back and think about how things were viewed back then. My best guess is most of the sports didn't have money to recruit anyway, so they damn sure weren't worried about coaches trying recruit already enrolled at other universities for a golf program. It was primarily just for football and basketball, because the NCAA didn't want Michigan football trying to steal players from Indiana. Or Kentucky basketball trying to grab a player from LSU. Baseball wasn't added to this list until 2008. One reason was that college baseball players had some of the lowest graduation rates among all sports.

So, yeah. You're right as well. There's a lot of nuance to all this. But the rule was originally to protect both institutions and student-athletes. We can debate whether that was successful or not. But you're going to be hard pressed to convince me this is going to benefit a school like MT. Perhaps it will in some instances. But the day someone like Kevin Byard gets recruited to go to an SEC school because he's balling out at MT losing our best players to P5 is going to have far more ramifications than being able to add a former P5 who didn't get the playing time he wanted.

And the day it's someone like a QB who would have broken all of Brent's passing records had he not been woo'd by UGA or the would-be All-American that would have broken some significant C-USA hoops mark had he stayed instead of ending up at UNC to play his final two years those losses are going to be for more damaging than anything we're going to get out of this portal.

 

[MTFNBY5]

Wiley is right. This is not good for the G5 and MT. It is all driven by greed.

Rarely agree completely with Wiley but 100% this time. Does nothing for MT but what's new?; every change in the college landscape in recent years has hurt so-called %$&-majors.

 

[FranklinRaider315]

Go Belmont?????

 

[MTLynn]

The mission of higher ed is to educate. Money has perverted college athletics.

I really don't want college athletes paid. They should go pro if they want to be paid - like college baseball - and athletes who want an education can accept a scholarship.

One thing that would level the playing field (and it would take an act of congress, literally) is for equal profit sharing between all conferences - bowls, TV revenue, etc.

 

[BlueAlpha]

That's a fair view. Hypocrisy is certainly something that has plagued the NCAA over the years.

That said, you have to look at when by-laws related to this went into effect. Many years before big time money and greed entered into the college athletics hierarchy.

So, let's be honest for a moment. Over time, as TV revenue changed the dynamics for college football/basketball, obviously players became valuable properties for universities so losing them to transfer just because their star got disenfranchised for whatever reason was a motivating factor to maintain this rule. I don't think that's lost on anyone. I don't know this for sure, but if you go back to the 70's when the NCAA basically redid everything were the Olympic sports a concern for them in this regard? No, of course not. Not that they didn't care about the welfare of the kids in those sports, but that they just didn't see the transfer issue as big of a deal nor as likely in those sports. Again, you have to go decades back and think about how things were viewed back then. My best guess is most of the sports didn't have money to recruit anyway, so they damn sure weren't worried about coaches trying recruit already enrolled at other universities for a golf program. It was primarily just for football and basketball, because the NCAA didn't want Michigan football trying to steal players from Indiana. Or Kentucky basketball trying to grab a player from LSU. Baseball wasn't added to this list until 2008. One reason was that college baseball players had some of the lowest graduation rates among all sports.

So, yeah. You're right as well. There's a lot of nuance to all this. But the rule was originally to protect both institutions and student-athletes. We can debate whether that was successful or not. But you're going to be hard pressed to convince me this is going to benefit a school like MT. Perhaps it will in some instances. But the day someone like Kevin Byard gets recruited to go to an SEC school because he's balling out at MT losing our best players to P5 is going to have far more ramifications than being able to add a former P5 who didn't get the playing time he wanted.

And the day it's someone like a QB who would have broken all of Brent's passing records had he not been woo'd by UGA or the would-be All-American that would have broken some significant C-USA hoops mark had he stayed instead of ending up at UNC to play his final two years those losses are going to be for more damaging than anything we're going to get out of this portal.

I VERY much appreciate your thought process and how you articulated it without being snarky. Which doesn’t always happen here. I’m resigned to the fact I’m going to agree, to disagree, with many on here. Which is fine.
Let’s take our moribund football program for a second. I looked at our record against programs from so-called big-time programs the last 2 years.
Kentucky. 34-23
Georgia. 49- 7
Vandy. 35- 7
Iowa. 48- 3
Duke. 41-18
Michigan. 40-21

total. 247-79

In 14 years our current HC has yet to win an outright conference championship in either league. Our most recent recruiting class is rated #76. Under the proposed new rules is it possible to lose a Blankenship or Richie James caliber type player? Absolutely! But for the life of me I can’t see how or why a KY or VT would give anyone coming out of MT much of a sniff.
Going back to the great run we had those last several years with Kermit, will it be easier to lose a Reggie or Giddy, again, absolutely. But, they were exceptions as they were 4-year guys. Kermit made his living with transfers & juco’s. Like I said in an earlier post, I think this will benefit us, and hurt the HBCU & conferences like the OVC. Kids from the SEC & ACC don’t have to sit out when transferring to schools like that.
Now schools like ours could move up in the pecking order ahead of those schools.
The transfer portal, from what I have read, is already full. When UGA was looking for a stopgap QB, they said they had a ton of options and took the QB from Wake. I think it’s gonna be tough for the vast majority of our athletes to get a hard look. If I’m wrong will come back here and admit it.

 

[MT01]

I VERY much appreciate your thought process and how you articulated it without being snarky. Which doesn’t always happen here. I’m resigned to the fact I’m going to agree, to disagree, with many on here. Which is fine.
Let’s take our moribund football program for a second. I looked at our record against programs from so-called big-time programs the last 2 years.
Kentucky. 34-23
Georgia. 49- 7
Vandy. 35- 7
Iowa. 48- 3
Duke. 41-18
Michigan. 40-21

total. 247-79

In 14 years our current HC has yet to win an outright conference championship in either league. Our most recent recruiting class is rated #76. Under the proposed new rules is it possible to lose a Blankenship or Richie James caliber type player? Absolutely! But for the life of me I can’t see how or why a KY or VT would give anyone coming out of MT much of a sniff.
Going back to the great run we had those last several years with Kermit, will it be easier to lose a Reggie or Giddy, again, absolutely. But, they were exceptions as they were 4-year guys. Kermit made his living with transfers & juco’s. Like I said in an earlier post, I think this will benefit us, and hurt the HBCU & conferences like the OVC. Kids from the SEC & ACC don’t have to sit out when transferring to schools like that.
Now schools like ours could move up in the pecking order ahead of those schools.
The transfer portal, from what I have read, is already full. When UGA was looking for a stopgap QB, they said they had a ton of options and took the QB from Wake. I think it’s gonna be tough for the vast majority of our athletes to get a hard look. If I’m wrong will come back here and admit it.

Are you really that naive? I didn’t say a vast majority of ours would get looks. I said they will steal our best. This rare gets we sign that can - almost by themselves - transcend our program. A guy like Richie James very likely never sees a sophomore season at MT with a rule like this.