ACC Supports One-Time Transfer Opportunity

The ACC released a statement on one-time transfer opportunity.

"During the league's annual winter meetings (February 12-14), the ACC discussed the transfer environment and unanimously concluded that as a matter of principle we support a one-time transfer opportunity for all student-athletes, regardless of sport. As a conference, we look forward to continuing the discussion nationally."

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

it sucks having been on the short end of the waiver stick. makes sense why the ACC would be in on this.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I can see this becoming a free agency for the blue bloods when they have prospects that don't pan out and tell them nicely that they won't ever see the field and then they go shopping for the standouts on a middling team to fill in their roster. I don't see this becoming a pipeline wave of good players who are "passed/held down on the depth chart" who want to find another team where they can shine.

Whatever. It was one bad year.

Seasonal Brew means High ABV for football season and standard the rest of the year.

Just curious how this is different than what is currently in place? Seems to me transfer portal did that, but this just removes an unfair penalty to "student" athletes.

Exactly, the one year period to sit out was a barrier to a psuedo "free agency". It created a risk to a player in which, if they didn't get a waiver from a flaky NCAA, they would lose a year. If you are a sure fire NFL pick, the risk of missing a year is probably not outweighed by the potential exposure at a blue blood and they would be better off playing the year out for their current team. In most cases the NCAA seemed to be rubber stamping these waivers so the risk appeared to be minimal, but there was still a chance, see Burmeister, Hoffman, et al.

Whatever. It was one bad year.

Seasonal Brew means High ABV for football season and standard the rest of the year.

I guess we just have different view points on who this will benefit and how players will evaluate their options. Barring a change to the total years a player gets to play this seems like a good move.

What I'm saying is that I don't think the possibility of having to sit a year was keeping players from transferring, they still had the same number of years to play either way. This would just remove some of the power from the NCAA to make inconsistent waiver decisions.

Edit: I guess it could come into play a bit more if said player had already redshirted, then yes the transfer penalty would be a deterrent.

Right now the goal in the NFL is to get off the rookie contract with as many good years to play as possible and start getting those huge FA contracts. Its why players may jump earlier than they should and be willing to take a 4th round selection rather than play another college year that might see them be a 1st round selection. Sitting out a year may mean they only play long enough to get one instead of two FA deals. Tremaine is set up to make a TON of cash by being so young when he went pro.

Whatever. It was one bad year.

Seasonal Brew means High ABV for football season and standard the rest of the year.

Correct, so the new rule of immediate eligibility on one-time transfer would expedite that process for the player. So, another plus for it in my opinion.

I think we are arguing two different points. I agree that it is good for the players, I am arguing that it will be bad for competitive balance by eliminating barriers to prevent this system from becoming a free agency system withing a structure that only kept parity by scholarship limits. This system will only further condense the talent into 10-12 teams.

Whatever. It was one bad year.

Seasonal Brew means High ABV for football season and standard the rest of the year.

They are not very smart in your scenario. There is next to no guaranteed money in a 4th round contract. They are much smarter to wait one year- not 12 years- and cash in on a much more lucrative guaranteed 1st round deal. The difference is huge, especially in the top of the first round. So instead of being 24 and having earned 250K guaranteed when you hit free agency, you are 25 having earned 6 million guaranteed. No brainer

But if you get to 24 and land a 45 million contract with 20 million guaranteed, then by 25 you are even, but toward the end when you are a 32 y/o FA vs a 33 y/o FA, there is a better shot of a third (in this instance) big contract. NBA trending the same way with trying to get to big contracts younger by getting the rookie deal out of the way.

Whatever. It was one bad year.

Seasonal Brew means High ABV for football season and standard the rest of the year.

1. there is virtually no difference between a 32 YO and 33 YO NFL player, save perhaps at RB. 2. The only 32 year old players in the NFL getting a 3rd huge contract are QB's, LT's and edge rushers.

i'd argue that a year difference is less of an issue the younger you are, because the dropoff on the aging curve is ostensibly bigger the older you are. A 32 year old might get more guaranteed money or over a longer base than a 33 year old because teams are more inclined to go year to year with an older player

yes, making better money earlier in your career helps a lot, but getting more cracks at an unrestricted free agent contract also helps. there is a reason teams trade up into the end of the first round to be able to take a player and secure the fifth-year option on them. it cost the bears a lot of money when they didn't pick up kyle fuller's fifth year option.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

One step closer to making the mid majors a minor league! Relegation structure incoming! #goacc

If you provide more opportunity and a better atmosphere for the student, why would you discourage a transfer? That's what every other college student is doing. They transfer for academic, social, and resource related issues every day. It just seems like blocking transfers is a way for a school to keep the students they recruited and coached so others can't have them.

Outspoken team cake advocate. Hates terrapins. Resident Macho Man Gif Poster. Distant cousin to Dork Magic. Frequently misspells words.

I may be a bit off on this, but my understanding is that the sit rule was intended to counter the overt influence of athletics on possible student transfers, and to encourage stability for the students.

NCAA took the view that yeah, regular students transfer all the time, but only a small proportion. And students that don't hop around have better academic outcomes. With scholarship athletes under a ton more pressure/temptation to transfer for athletic-only reasons, the sit-one rule was put in place to be a deterrent to counter the temptation of chasing more PT. If a player really wanted to transfer for athletic reasons, they could use their redshirt season and maintain the same 4 playable years, or move down a level of competition. If they had a legit non-athletic hardship they could get a waiver to the sit-one rule.

There was also the desire to minimize tampering issues where coaches and athletic programs who invested in scouting and development of athletes did not want to be feeder teams for their higher-profile rivals.

Now the focus seems to be shifting more towards catering to the small % of college athletes with legit professional sport aspirations, and letting them transfer to maximize their profile.... moving away from treating scholarship athletes like they are students first and athletics is an influence on their academic career that needs to be moderated. I think the NCAA really screwed up with how lenient they were with waivers for that group of players like Fields & Martell, and giving out waivers for coaching changes... and the cat is out of the bag now.

What's next? easing the limits on practice time? I mean we're really cramping these future NFL'ers development by limiting them to 20 hours per week of football practice / coaching.

And students that don't hop around have better academic outcomes

This is why students typically transfer. Non-athletic students that is. The transfer situation nation wide is so sorely misunderstood. National Student Clearing House reports that nearly 37% of all students transfer at least once.

The NCAA reports that Div 1 athletes transfer at a rate of about 12%. That is surprisingly low, and I'd imagine specific sports have much lower rates than that.

I just say, why are we over regulating these athletes? Such a small % go pro, let them transfer schools. I just don't at my core understand why we are moderating athletes in such a different fashion from the average student. They already give a ton to be an athlete and a student, why do we keep making it hard on this subset?

Outspoken team cake advocate. Hates terrapins. Resident Macho Man Gif Poster. Distant cousin to Dork Magic. Frequently misspells words.

And students that don't hop around have better academic outcomes

This is just untrue. I transferred and graduated with my undergrad in 3 years total and my masters in what would've been my senior year. I know countless friends and family members that transferred and they did not have worse academic outcomes than people that were at 1 school from freshman year until graduation.

Now drop the football scholarship limit to 70/20

But when do franchise tags come in to play?🤔

I can imagine no more rewarding a career. And any man who may be asked in this century what he did to make his life worthwhile, I think can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction:
“I served in the United States Navy"

KCCO

Of course the ACC agrees with this. For some reason, they don't seem to have the Big 10/SEC pull when it comes to waivers.

VT in particular.

It's a good idea. Let's do it.

That's what confuses me. It's a great idea and the ACC agrees with it.

Click here to destroy wall.

Does it even matter at this point?

People keep getting all fired up about the SEC/Big10 spending money...let em at this point. Nobody cares.

And by nobody cares, I mean most people that are budgeting day by day to make sure they can pay the bills and help their kids pay for college. Paying extra costs to "help" the football team is a nonstarter for a majority of the population.

If NCAA football becomes a league where only a handful of teams can win it all (I know that sounds crazy but stick with me on this one...), no one will lose a minute of sleep about it outside of a (currently) large but (dwindling in revenue) group of fanbases.

The youngins are all about basketball these days anyway, at least my 8 and 6 year old are. And I can play that in the driveway with them without any other costs besides a nice hoop setup

Are you really saying nobody cares about football? And if so, what does our personal budgets have to do with transfers?

"You don't stare into a rearview mirror"

Been in place for years... Braxton Key, Tate Martell, etc. No VT players though.

I think I'm ok with the proposal. However I think a student athlete should have the cost of their scholarship prorated from the time they enter the portal to the end of the semester in which they declare. It frosts me that players declare after the semester starts then get a semester paid in full for nothing.

I'm totally on board with this!

Personally I'd take it a step further and have the players pay back the school for the degree if they leave early. If the NCAA is really going to pretend that college football isn't a NFL development league, then stand harder on the principle that achieving their degree is paramount to the "student athlete" concept.

Isn't the contract a student athlete is to play a season, and in compensation get a year's worth of tuition? You come in during the summer (i.e., no summer break) to work out and begin practice that is held 5 or 6 out of 7 days a week. Then season and classes start, putting long days of studying and practice and also have to play games (half of them requiring travel) and thus have virtually no weekends. And for this crazy amount of effort, you get a single year's worth of tuition. tbh, I dont think a year's tuition is just payment for the effort they put in and the dollars they bring to the school.

With that said, perhaps if a student athlete quit on the team and doesnt put in the effort (i.e., not holding up his end of the deal), then prorate or cancel the scholarship (or whatever is just).

🦃 🦃 🦃

Basically, this would let the Jamie Newman's of the world not have to wait until they graduate to transfer up to a top team.

I don't necessarily have an issue with it for player reasons, but I think that kind of situation will become much more common. G5 and lower-mid P5's will become development stops for their best players before they take their talents to title contenders.

There will be top team kids that transfer down, but the ultimate benefit will be exactly like what Georgia did with Newman. Georgia has an elite defense, but are losing a 3 year starter at QB without anyone to take his place because Fields transferred, what do they do? Take a guy who Wake Forest developed into a high quality QB who still has eligibility at Wake Forest, and now he's the Georgia QB. Small P5 school just trained Georgia's 2020 QB for them.

I agree, this takes away the slight competitive balance of the diamond in the rough carrying a small school and poor talent evaluations (coaches and players) weighing down a powerhouse all but disappears. In the future if the powerhouses miss on a few key spots, they just look around the college landscape and find the best player at the position they need at a school that will likely only win 7-8 games and then promise them an NFL career and presto!, contenders again! Hopefully Tech rights the ship enough to be able to be on the receiving side rather than the giving side.

Whatever. It was one bad year.

Seasonal Brew means High ABV for football season and standard the rest of the year.

Would this have allowed Brock Hoffman to play last year?

If not, what is even the point of this? If the NCAA is still the clearinghouse that has to declare someone eligible, does the conference directive even matter?

King Alum of the House Hokie, the First of His Name, Khal of the Turkey Legs, The rightful Heir to the Big Board, the Unbanned, Breaker of Trolls and Father of Gritty

Directive? I think it's just the ACC announcing formally that they're in favor of this as a conference and would like to see the NCAA move in that direction. Of course the theoretical NCAA policy change would have helped Brock Hoffman because he wouldn't have needed a waiver to be eligible.

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Little does everyone know this rule already applies if you were to transfer from VT.

Marshall University student.
Virginia Tech fanatic.