ADVERTISEMENT

NCAA 1 Time Transfer Rule

RaiderDawg78

All American
Sep 7, 2005
3,906
1,307
113
The NCAA is one step closer to the 1 time transfer rule with immediate eligibility. We discussed this earlier in the year and whether this may be a positive or negative for MT.

 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceRaider
G5 will lose there best players to better programs, as well as FCS. This will really hurt High school recruiting
 
Very unfortunate. Coaches will have to be softer with kids now incase you hurt someone's feelings and they transfer. I see tons of second and third string players trying to shuffle around also because I can tell you from experience, the vast majority of kids on a D1 roster think they're not only starter worthy, but going to the league. I see coaches possibly continuing to recruit a kid on another roster. I see academics probably taking a hit because we all know all classes usually don't transfer. I see the number of transfers going through the roof.

Seems like a terrible idea to me. I see nothing but problems arising from this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hop45 and mtfblue
IMO, MT could just as easily gain a contributor as they can lose one to a P5 program.

And, if MT plays it smart, it's another way to expedite a turnaround.
1) Use transfer portal to recruit P5 kids / grad transfers from winning programs. They've seen what winning is like and could provide leadership at MT
2) Use JUCO to build depth and find additional contributors to play NOW.
3) Use HS to build depth for 2 years down the road and plan to RS all HS players
 
IMO, MT could just as easily gain a contributor as they can lose one to a P5 program.

And, if MT plays it smart, it's another way to expedite a turnaround.
1) Use transfer portal to recruit P5 kids / grad transfers from winning programs. They've seen what winning is like and could provide leadership at MT
2) Use JUCO to build depth and find additional contributors to play NOW.
3) Use HS to build depth for 2 years down the road and plan to RS all HS players
All good points however the key word is smart. We don't have that here.
 
if you accept a free ride to a school you shouldn’t be able to just leave. This is a terrible rule. Lessens consistency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: subkyle
Ultimately, guys want to play so most transfers will be to places they can start.

I think we will see more transfers from P5 to G5 than the other way around, and more guys will transfer to G5 rather than FCS since they won't have to sit out.
 
if you accept a free ride to a school you shouldn’t be able to just leave. This is a terrible rule. Lessens consistency.
Their scholarships are annual. Make scholarships guaranteed for 4 years then I will agree with you. No reason a player should not be able to go to any school they want after fulfilling their one year contract (scholarship).
 
I challenge you to name one NCAA rule change which has helped, or at least not hurt, a school like MT.

While you are at it name me one change which has happened to the sports media or society in general which helps the athletic program at MT or similar schools.

Bonus: List the changes which have occurred over the last 20 years in the mid-state area which have helped either the image of MT's academic or athletic programs.
 
They auto renew. It is a multi year deal. I’d like to know the numbers of kids we stop the scholarship.

It’s a ridiculous rule. Yet we can sign a washed up coach for years. The only consistency we have is bad decisions and luck.
Their scholarships are annual. Make scholarships guaranteed for 4 years then I will agree with you. No reason a player should not be able to go to any school they want after fulfilling their one year contract (scholarship).
 
All good points however the key word is smart. We don't have that here.
That's a fair point. I'm not sure we will see Stockstill maximize the transfer portal if the rule passes.

Ultimately, guys want to play so most transfers will be to places they can start.

I think we will see more transfers from P5 to G5 than the other way around, and more guys will transfer to G5 rather than FCS since they won't have to sit out.
Former HS 4 star guys who were promised starting roles at P5 schools will look to play their final year or two at a G5.

Guys who were stars always believe they will be stars at the next level. They want to play. They want to be on the field. And it's hard to explain to guys that being a 4 star among 4 stars at a P5 means they are a big fish in a big pond. Be a 4 star among 2 stars at G5 means they are a big fish in a small pond.

And, it's possible that MT may lose a couple of two star guys they've recruited past.
 
They auto renew. It is a multi year deal. I’d like to know the numbers of kids we stop the scholarship.

It’s a ridiculous rule. Yet we can sign a washed up coach for years. The only consistency we have is bad decisions and luck.

It's really not a multi-year scholarship. It's one year. The examples of this happen quite often in our basketball program in recent years. When you see these kids transfer and go to a lower division or level it's because they were told they weren't going to be coming back on scholarship. The schools aren't going to come out say we aren't resigning kid xyz because he wasn't good enough. The scholarship goes to someone else, the kid transfers, and that's the end of it, but it's not a four-year scholarship and every school and the NCAA has validated this.

That said, the rule will incentivize kids transferring because they don't like the mood of things or playing time or name any other reason. I would like to see the NCAA fix the unintended consequences of this rule. One way to do that would be for a school to offer either a one, two, or four-year scholarship. For the kids that don't want to go all in they can sign a one year scholarship and then transfer if they want. If kids want the stability and assurance they can sign four years but have to sit out a year if they decide to transfer. This would also help reduce better G5 players going to a P5, because most of them are going to take the four year deal if it's offered.

My biggest concern about this is that the best players are going to be recruiting under the table and plucked. Could you imagine how many schools would have wanted Richie James after his first couple of years? The consequences of a P5 taking a G5's best player will cause much more severe damage to the G5 program than will the G5 benefit from P5 players seeking to find a place to get more playing time.
 
It's really not a multi-year scholarship. It's one year. The examples of this happen quite often in our basketball program in recent years. When you see these kids transfer and go to a lower division or level it's because they were told they weren't going to be coming back on scholarship. The schools aren't going to come out say we aren't resigning kid xyz because he wasn't good enough. The scholarship goes to someone else, the kid transfers, and that's the end of it, but it's not a four-year scholarship and every school and the NCAA has validated this.

That said, the rule will incentivize kids transferring because they don't like the mood of things or playing time or name any other reason. I would like to see the NCAA fix the unintended consequences of this rule. One way to do that would be for a school to offer either a one, two, or four-year scholarship. For the kids that don't want to go all in they can sign a one year scholarship and then transfer if they want. If kids want the stability and assurance they can sign four years but have to sit out a year if they decide to transfer. This would also help reduce better G5 players going to a P5, because most of them are going to take the four year deal if it's offered.

My biggest concern about this is that the best players are going to be recruiting under the table and plucked. Could you imagine how many schools would have wanted Richie James after his first couple of years? The consequences of a P5 taking a G5's best player will cause much more severe damage to the G5 program than will the G5 benefit from P5 players seeking to find a place to get more playing time.
Your last paragraph sums up my opposition. I can't help but believe this rule will be more a detriment to a school like MT than a help. (probably more so in BkB which is always my primary focus - perhaps not so much in FB because of the numbers involved)
 
Then unless a change for a scholarship extends beyond one year, let them transfer. It’s a contract. I’m surprised this hasn’t been heavily challenged before now. It may not be best for G5 schools but it is what it is. My original thought about the rule was due to the fact that I thought there was at least a four year guarantee. Since it is not...let them decide and transfer if they wish.

After a little digging, I found there are 4 year scholarships but they are rare. Most scholarships, however, are renewed.
 
After a little digging, I found there are 4 year scholarships but they are rare. Most scholarships, however, are renewed.
I wonder if we will see G5 schools offering 4 year scholarships?

I see the P5 using the G5 like a JUCO. They will supplement their rosters but the bulk will still come from high schools.
 
The Coach at Jacksonville St. said in an article that all P5 schools have a recruiting tracking board of FCS players. That's why they recruit them for the Graduate Transfer year
 
Certainly MT will take it's share of lumps with such a rule.

As harsh as I've become on CNM, I will say that I think his personal approach will likely keep as many players as could be expected for a G5 program. It appears his appeal is of a coach that takes time to to build a personal relationship with his young players. Young players that respond and sign with a coach like that are also likely to want to stay with a coach like that. For the most part.
 
i dont think football will suffer much but basketball will be bad. any time MT has an all conference type player, see ya! We will get Power 5 left overs and lose our best players
 
I think it will suffer for football as well. Does anyone think there was someone on the roster that would have delivered what Richie James did during his time here? If you take Brent's #1 target off the table what would have happened? It basically would have been Ty Lee who opposing defenses would double and force someone else to beat them. Who is the someone else? What about Kevin Byard. Take him out of the secondary during his last year or two and how much worse is our defense?

The risk here is that the one player you are most likely to lose is the one that has most significant individual impact on your success.

I actually see it as less of an issue for basketball (but it requires a coach who knows what the hell he's doing). We've already proven we can take P5 players in hoops that were average or didn't really get a chance and turn them into superstars. But again it requires a coach who has a clue. That does not describe our current situation.
 
If it was going to help G5 schools, the NCAA would never approve it. I'm sure a smart G5 program might be able to make it work for them until the coach gets a better job, but that ain't us. When UAB dismantled the program, how many players did CRS get? How many beat did WKU get? CRS had seen those players, who wouldn't have to sit a year, and didn't appear to even make an effort for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceRaider
This has the potential to be a BIG win for MT. Some backup players on bigger programs will want to start, so a school like MT wins if they can manage to get a better quality player that wants to transfer in and start.

Does anyone think a backup QB for South Carolina or Arkansas can beat out Asher O'Hara? I'll take that bet all day long. I think it's the bigger progams that lose in this scenario, because it will be harder for them to stockpile talent and bury them on the depth chart.

HUGE win for MT to gain some better talent if it comes about.
 
i dont think football will suffer much but basketball will be bad. any time MT has an all conference type player, see ya! We will get Power 5 left overs and lose our best players

Have our BB stars not been transfers from other lower level P5 schools though? Dendy, King, Williams...
 
Last edited:
Again, I think it's the mid-level teams that win with this change. It's the backups at top programs that will want a starting spot, so they could move down. Lower level program starters might look to move up. So a program like MT is perfectly positioned for both. Although, you don't see a lot of starters at low programs moving up. It's usually just the backups that want to start.

MT would be much better talent-wise if they could secure some of these transfers. I would argue a backup at a top program is superior to some of our starters.
 
Do you think there wouldn't have been pressure on Potts or Upshaw to transfer "up" during their four years at MT.
In basketball, most P5 programs sign high school kids. Unless a G5 kid is promised a starting spot, and/or they aren't happy with the G5, I don't think a player like Potts or Upshaw would move to a P5.

Starters minutes can't be discounted. Heck, we will likely see bench players at great P5's transfer to mediocre P5's if they are promised starters minutes.
 
In basketball, most P5 programs sign high school kids. Unless a G5 kid is promised a starting spot, and/or they aren't happy with the G5, I don't think a player like Potts or Upshaw would move to a P5.

Starters minutes can't be discounted. Heck, we will likely see bench players at great P5's transfer to mediocre P5's if they are promised starters minutes.

Correct, I am hopeful that this rule actually increases BBall parity. And more so BBall because individual skill is so much more paramount and evident.
 
Change our name to power five leftovers. Somebody remember to turn off lights on the way out. 😂
 
I disagree with basketball. The cream will rise to the top and end up in the P5 programs. They will take our best players when they want to, and we will take their leftovers once they have had their pick of the litter. The gap will continue to widen further.

I believe we are jaded with P5 transfer success because Kermit did so well with his transfers from the P5 programs. The reality is most don’t turn out like a Dendy, King, or Williams. Very few coaches can squeeze the talent out like Kermit did. You’ll see that going forward as I highly doubt McDevitt turns any of these transfers into CUSA POY.
 
Do you think there wouldn't have been pressure on Potts or Upshaw to transfer "up" during their four years at MT.
I know Potts would have had some interest from Bruce Pearl at Auburn since he pretty much said he messed up not recruiting him. I think we will just have to see how this turns out.
 
Jalen Hurts spent 3 years at bammer, lost his starting gig as a Jr and then transferred to oklahoma as a grad transfer. He was drafted in the 2nd round.

Bottom line is that guys want to start, if possible, so players will be transferring everywhere for a chance to start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalen_Hurts
 
Like any NCAA rule, it is what you make of it. You can either use it to your advantage to improve your roster or use it as an excuse when you lose a kid to transfer.

That said, for every Zach Dobson who transfers to WVU, there is an I'Tavius Mathers who transfers to MT
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT