PonyFans.com

Not so sure how this would play out for SMU. Remember there are 150 Division 1A recruits from DFW every year-and many might have some interest in coming home after they end up at Podunk U. Graduate transfer rule has been fantastic for SMU. I generally don't like the idea of incentivizing transfers though

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... nferences/

The coach not being able to limit the student-athlete's choices for a transfer school makes sense, as it has nothing to do with the student-athlete's chances for academic success. But the sit-out rule was lumped into the argument with no real explanation of why it is in question. If the student-athlete is truly transferring in search of academic success (which rarely the good ones are in football or basketball), having to sit out a year allows the student-athlete to focus on their studies. If the student-athlete is transferring for purely athletic reasons, the sit-out rule is a hurdle that forces him or her to truly consider the value of transferring, and helps retain the feeling of amateur athletics in college sports. It's hard to defend the coach's pick rule, but the sit-out rule still makes sense. (Though maintaining both rules is in SMU's best interest...)

Let's revisit the Mrydel rule suggestion. When transferring down from P5 there is no sit out required. Transferring P5 to P5 or lower level to P5 you sit a year.

mrydel wrote:Let's revisit the Mrydel rule suggestion. When transferring down from P5 there is no sit out required. Transferring P5 to P5 or lower level to P5 you sit a year.

yeah, but who makes the rules? P5. they wouldn't go for that.

I have advocated this policy for years. Where we are today shows you how far my authority goes. But ever since the BCS was established I have felt it was unfair for a kid to transfer to a FCS school and not have to sit out but the ones like us in between the bigs and the littles get squeezed out.

yeah but then you are probably going to get "restraint of trade" lawsuits from players wanting to transfer from the "have-nots" to the "haves". Is a players entitlement to the added financial benefits during his entire college career going to be limited by how highly he was recruited as an 18 year old. I'm serious that suit is coming

So not only do they want to hoard all of the TV money, they also want to hoard all the good players?

Stallion wrote:yeah but then you are probably going to get "restraint of trade" lawsuits from players wanting to transfer from the "have-nots" to the "haves". Is a players entitlement to the added financial benefits during his entire college career going to be limited by how highly he was recruited as an 18 year old. I'm serious that suit is coming

They can transfer. They just need to sit a year. If there was basis for a lawsuit I would have thought one would have already been filed with the current "sit a year" policy. No money involved now but there are certainly other benefits to be derived if one were not to sit.