“The best players are going to be on the field, not on the sideline.”

If you’re uneasy about the rapid pace of player transfer expansion, I understand, but, in the bigger picture, isn’t this better for college football?

On Wednesday, Alabama quarterback Jalen Hurts announced his transfer to Oklahoma. As a graduate student, he will be immediately eligible, and he will likely be the third consecutive transfer to win the starting quarterback job for the Sooners. Hurts will also try to become the third straight quarterback to win the Heisman Trophy at Oklahoma.

But Hurts isn’t alone. As he touches down in Norman, Oklahoma, former OU QB Austin Kendall is taking off for Morgantown, West Virginia, where he expects to find WVU’s starting quarterback job waiting. Elsewhere, Ohio State will be breaking in its newest enrollee, former five-star Georgia backup Justin Fields. He got to Columbus, Ohio, just in time to see the Buckeyes’ 2018 backup, Tate Martell, depart for Miami. Both are seeking waivers to become immediately eligible.

The flood isn’t just feeding an elite few. All over college football, talented arms are washing up on shore.

When true freshman Trevor Lawrence won the starting job at Clemson, he sent Kelly Bryant and Hunter Johnson to likely starting roles at Missouri and Northwestern, respectively, where they will replace likely NFL Draft picks. Before Jake Fromm sent Fields packing for Ohio State, he sent another former Georgia five-star QB, Jacob Eason, to Washington. Both could be starters on College Football Playoff-caliber teams. Brandon Wimbush left Notre Dame to take over at UCF. Alex Delton has moved from TCU from Kansas State.

Quarterbacks who just a few short years ago would have been sitting on the bench as backups — talented players, mind you — are getting their chance to hit the field at new programs.  Obviously, if you’re a fan of one of the receiving programs, this is an unequivocally good development, but from an overall perspective, how is it not a good thing for college football for more talented kids to play?

Similarly, there are 135 kids leaving early for the NFL draft.  Now, those slated for the first round and those who’ve hit the academic skids would go no matter what, but if there were adequate compensation for college players, how many of those 135 might stay for another year in college?  How would that not be a good thing for those who watch college football?

Sure, it’s always going to be the case that we’ll root for a school, but college football is a more competitive and better follow with the most talent and experience it can deploy.

Advertisements

103 Comments

Filed under College Football, It's Just Bidness, The NCAA, Transfers Are For Coaches.

103 responses to ““The best players are going to be on the field, not on the sideline.”

  1. Biggus Rickus

    It’s good on one level and bad on another. As a traditionalist in so many aspects of college football, I don’t know why you’re as blasé as you are about this. It fundamentally transforms the nature of college football in a similar way to conference expansions, playoffs and money grabs. I don’t particularly care, myself, but considering how much you harp on the other stuff, it just strikes me as odd.

    And for the record, I’m of the opinion that players should be able to transfer without having to sit under any circumstances.

    Like

    • The reason I’m blasé, as you put it, is because I’ve come to the conclusion that the CFB transformation horse has already left the barn. And if that’s the case, why should student-athletes — you know, the kids we actually watch every week — be the only ones excluded from existing reality?

      Like

      • Macallanlover

        I feel it will be adequately under control if the NCAA doesn’t grant waivers except for clear situations of need rather than because they don’t want to hurt the feelings of those who just don’t care for their current situation. They have other options that would not jeopardize the stability of the game.

        On the other hand, I feel the increase of graduate transfers and bringing in more JUCOs has been beneficial to the sport. It has helped both players and teams from what I have seen.

        Like

  2. ASEF

    For the elite players, it’s awesome. For guys at the bottom of the roster, it would be nice if they had he option to flip to a non-counter aid option, allowing them to stay on campus as long as they got their grades and behaved themselves. Call it the Way-less-talented Gurley Rule. No means, put down roots on Georgia campus, and SEC football isn’t working out. Why make that kid leave or put the coaches in a position of encouraging him to because he’s using up a scholarship?

    Like

  3. Mick Jagger

    We’re watching a slow motion train wreck.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Greg

      concur…..

      Like

    • Atticus

      100% agree. Baseball (for different reasons) has been significantly diminished the last 2 decades, the NBA says its so popular but yet I don’t know anyone (all demographics) that follows it on a regular basis and the NFL is starting to leak oil and kids participation levels are dramatically reduced (their future product). Its only a matter of time before this $hithouse goes up in flames and it always comes down to money and who gets it and who isn’t.

      Like

  4. Bright Idea

    The COA stipend that we talked so much about before it came into existence which never gets mentioned now wasn’t enough so will paying a salary be enough? I doubt it. I can see coaches trading players in the future.

    Like

    • Atticus

      Exactly my point. How much of a stipend is enough? This discussion is a joke honestly. I know its the Senator’s opinion that it should be an open market. I am fine with that. Take away the scholarship housing and stipend money and pay them what their “worth is” and see how that works for you and the health of the sport.

      Like

      • Take away the scholarship housing and stipend money and pay them what their “worth is” and see how that works for you and the health of the sport.

        Why do you expect it to be a binary choice like that?

        Like

        • Atticus

          These kids are getting more and more benefits (over and under the table) and its getting worse so how is providing even more going to solve the problem? I am sorry its your board and I’ve heard your arguments 100 times and I disagree 100 times so I will stop. You are a good dude and Dawg and have a great board so I will just concede.

          Like

          • I’m not trying to run you off here, just interested in the debate. When you say “it’s getting worse”, what to you mean by “it”?

            Like

            • Tony Barnfart

              [I think your kids are grown–not sure] Have you seen what tuition is doing at any school that charges it ? It’s the only GD recession proof industry in the world. It’s something like a 4% increase every single year. Stock market down ? (Ray Liotta voice- screw you 4% increase) Property Taxes up ? (screw you- 4% increase) Interest Rate hike (screw you 4% increase).

              The point is: the days of being able to confidently say that tuition (and all the boarding) is not enough are receding QUICKLY.

              Like

              • What is the actual cost to a school for a scholarship? That’s not the same thing as a tuition charge to a student.

                Like

              • paul

                Tuition keeps going up because public support for education keeps going down and down. Every year, states give colleges and universities less and less and that money has to be found elsewhere. More specifically, your pocket. When I went to college my tuition only had to cover about 50% of my actual cost of attendance. The state offset the other costs and it was considered an investment in our future. Lawmakers don’t think that way anymore and have been steadily decreasing the percentage of education costs they choose to fund. Today, the state picks up about 25 to 30% of the costs depending on where you live. And in every state schools are being told that amount will continue to decrease.

                Like

                • Biggus Rickus

                  I’m not sure it’s that simple. I’d be interested to see what kind of overhead increases have taken place on average in the past 20 or 30 years.

                  Like

                  • Napoleon BonerFart

                    In 2007, administrative bureaucracy was over 26% of the higher education workforce. So efficiency is certainly not something the schools worry about.

                    Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  I disagree. Increases in grants and aid have been responsible for an explosion in enrollment over the last 50 years. And unsurprisingly, colleges have responded to the increased demand by jacking up tuition. And the government solution to the problem it created is to subsidize tuition even more, leading to increased demand, leading to increased costs, etc.

                  Like

                  • paul

                    Increases in grants and aid are a response to increased costs. They don’t drive enrollment. Rather they are driven by financial need on the part of the enrolled. Government subsidies have significantly decreased I can assure you. I work in higher education and have for the past twenty years. The government will, however, guarantee your student loan. Something they probably shouldn’t do in my opinion. But that’s a separate issue.

                    Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      An Econ 101 truth is that subsidizing something increases demand, which increases price. The New York Federal Reserve did a study estimating that when the government increases subsidies to students, colleges raise tuition by 65% of the increase in subsidies.

                      And state spending has decreased for higher education. But the federal government has picked up the slack. Combined federal, state, and local subsidies for higher education (inflation adjusted) increased 23% from 2008 to 2016 to the highest level ever of $183 billion.

                      Like

              • Napoleon BonerFart

                Also, the benefit to the student isn’t uniform. A chemistry degree is valuable. A social work degree isn’t. It doesn’t matter what you paid, or would have paid, for the degree. And the fact is, most scholarship athletes aren’t pursuing high worth degrees.

                Like

                • paul

                  I agree with you that one area where we fail miserably is being honest with people about the true value of a degree. All degrees are not created equal. And quite frankly, not everyone should go to college. We also fail miserably at providing alternatives for those who choose not to pursue higher education. There are lots of highly profitable, valuable and necessary careers that do not require a college degree.

                  Like

            • Atticus

              The college football environment. Kids taking scholarships, getting food and housing and a stipend and taking advantage of the opportunity. Fans filling stadiums and kids going to the NFL or graduating and getting a job in their field of choice. Now we are seeing attendance drop, significantly for the scrub games, tickets prices are exponentially increasing, coaches salaries have become a joke and more kids skipping bowls and going pro early when they have no business doing so. The IT is college football’s health as we know it. More money to the kids is not going to solve the problem.

              Like

              • Would not giving kids more solve it?

                Like

                • Atticus

                  No it won’t be solved. Its toast. The next 10 years will be just about do it. Its not a sustainable model for many reasons. There will be a major interruption in the sport but I have no idea what that will look like. We will still have a CFP more than likely but the health of the sport nationwide is going to collapse.

                  Like

                  • The health of the sport of football is going to collapse not due to lack of money but the lack of players. Parents are steering boys away from football to other sports where they may not have CTE or long-term health problems.

                    Like

  5. Bulldog Joe

    Unfortunately, many of the best players are going to be on the sideline. The number of NFL roster positions hasn’t changed.

    Like

  6. Normaltown Mike

    The early NFL exits (for guys that don’t get drafted) is the most upsetting to me as a fan.

    If an upperclassman fan favorite (say Herrien) had a loaner car from the Chevy dealership and earned some nice scratch off signing memorabilia and was on the side of a billboard for Ken Nugent, I think he’d have an even GREATER attachment to UGA and Dawg nation.

    Like

    • Atticus

      Who is paying real money for Brian Herrien’s autograph?

      Like

      • Napoleon BonerFart

        I wouldn’t mind having his Sugar Bowl jersey.

        Like

        • Atticus

          Congrats he just made $100. Is that keeping him in school?

          Like

          • Napoleon BonerFart

            I doubt it would keep him in school. But he would probably appreciate the opportunity to sell his own property.

            Like

          • $100 isn’t going to keep him in school IF Bonerfart does even indeed care to give it to him. However, we aren’t talking about having to keep Herrien in school, because he’s not at risk of leaving. And if he did, with all due respect to Herrien, I don’t think we’d be all that worried. The kids we’re talking about, the ones who leave early or transfer for PT, are usually the Gurley’s (at the highest extreme) and Hardmans (on the lower, 3rd round of the NFL draft) of the world. Those guys should (and would be able to) gain $$ off of their name. I for one am all for that. What I’m not for is the school paying them. Not that the government does a good job of spending money with discretion, but it would be an irresponsible use of tax dollars….imo.

            Like

            • So you’re saying the check UGA receives from the SEC for its share of the TV money represents tax dollars? Interesting.

              Speaking of irresponsible, how do you feel about a school raking in athletic dollars by the fistful charging an athletic fee to its students?

              Like

              • The company I work for makes incrementally more money per year based on the work I do. They still get to choose if that’s worth compensating me more via a raise or a bonus (hint: they haven’t yet). That’s of course my decision to remain or leave. But in now way does the college owe that money to the player. Is every player on the lacrosse team worth as much as Deandre Swift? You think if Swift found out Johnny Boy Lacrosse goalie makes as much as him, that doesn’t set up a whole other set off issues?

                I agree about the athletic fee FWIW. Jane the art major probably couldn’t care less about UGA sports but is forced to pay it.

                Like

                • Since LAX at Georgia is a club sport, it doesn’t matter, but your point is taken.

                  I believe universities should make the many of the fees optional, and the athletic fee is at the top of the list. By refusing to pay the fee, you forgo the privilege of attending any UGA athletic event with the student ID.

                  Like

              • Also, does anyone know if the high schools on ESPN are getting $$$ for those appearances?

                Like

    • Napoleon BonerFart

      I agree. It would have been nice for both fans and Trent Thompson to see him playing in Athens in 2018. But when the choice is between the possibility of getting paid and the guarantee of not getting paid, lots of kids are going to take their chances in the NFL.

      Like

      • Atticus

        Its because they are clueless young men that don’t listen to quality counsel and take it from slimy agents and selfish parents trying to hit the jackpot. Trent was sold an empty bill of goods. That was a joke. And if he couldn’t make it on a roster in the NFL why would we want him filling a roster spot in Athens and taking up room for someone that wants to excel? He needs help way beyond football.

        Like

        • Napoleon BonerFart

          How can he obtain quality counsel when the NCAA forbids it? And based on his 2017 play, and the interior line play of UGA during 2018, I think we could have benefited greatly from Thompson’s presence. The fact that a player didn’t land on an NFL team doesn’t mean he couldn’t be a quality college player. Even Alabama’s and Clemson’s rosters are made up of mostly non-NFL talent.

          Like

          • Atticus

            The school’s counselors or parents or a 3rd party advisor like an alumni like Ben Watson or Tebow should made available to be their counsel. I don’t know what rosters you are looking at with Clemson and Bama but I promise you most of their players will end up on NFL rosters. Clemson entire DL are either 1st or 2nd round alone.

            Like

            • Napoleon BonerFart

              Even poor, ignorant players understand that an advisor provided by the school is going to represent the school’s interests over theirs. And sure, they can always hire a lawyer personally. Assuming they have the resources. And assuming the NCAA doesn’t consider the lawyer an agent. But other than that, good point.

              I don’t know how much you know about the NFL draft, but I promise you that most players (even on elite teams) never see it. Over the last 10 years, Alabama and LSU have had 65 kids drafted. That 6.5 per year out of 85 scholarships. Much less than 50%.

              Like

              • Atticus

                Alabama has had 22 players drafted the last 2 years. That is almost half the starters– the ones that aren’t drafted often are underclassmen who will eventually get drafted. Clemson’s entire DL are 1st and 2nd round. Trent would’ve helped for sure but we need to get much better and he wasn’t going to make us much better.

                Like

                • Napoleon BonerFart

                  Yes, almost half of Saban’s best players will be drafted. But that’s the incorrect standard to use. Drafted over total scholarships is more correct. By your own standard, scholarships should be used for NFL talent. And I’m sure every coach tries to accomplish that. But even Saban only hits on a fraction of his scholarships. If he signs 25 kids a year, that means 26% of his 10-year scholarships awarded were drafted. So, again, less than 50%.

                  And given that Georgia went to overtime against Alabama in the SECCG, did UGA need to be MUCH better to get past Alabama and back to the CFP? I don’t think so.

                  Like

  7. Atticus

    100% disagree that kids would stay if they were paid a little more. They are already paid a TON. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in an education and food and housing. Plus a stipend. That stipend would have to be significant for them to stay. Tell me how much you would propose and how it would be paid for and how you handle Title IX?

    Like

    • DawgPhan

      There should be an internet rule about mentioning title ix.

      Like

    • Greg

      Inclined to agree, but get ready to argue. Don’t have time today, somebody gotta bring home the bacon.

      Like

    • Napoleon BonerFart

      The tuition argument is inflated. Exactly how much is a Communications or Sport Management degree worth? And the room and board arguments completely ignores player preferences. 20 year-old kids will happily get roommates and eat cheaply in order to spend money on other things. But players don’t have those options.

      Like

      • Atticus

        Tell a kid like MoMass how much that degree is worth. Tell a kid working for $12 an hour how much housing and food is worth. Don’t take the scholarship then and give it to someone who wants to take full advantage.

        Like

        • Napoleon BonerFart

          That doesn’t answer the question. You’re just using “degree” as a catch-all. It’s not. A degree in social work is worthless. Given opportunity costs, it may be a net negative.

          And sure, a kid making $12 an hour would probably appreciate free food and housing. Does that mean we should design and enforce a system where every kid is presumed to have no other options? That doesn’t make sense.

          Like

          • Atticus

            If they have other options then take it. Nobody forces them to play football or take a free education or food and housing. Then don’t major in social work. Major in whatever you like. But don’t take hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits from the university and then tell me you are being taken advantage of in the process.

            Like

            • But don’t take hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits from the university and then tell me you are being taken advantage of in the process.

              The problem with this sort of argument is that if you take it to its logical conclusion, players wouldn’t receive any further compensation in an open market setting because they’re already being fairly compensated for their labor. If that’s the case, why is anyone worried?

              Like

              • Atticus

                Because the players HAVE been getting more and more benefits. Better everything. Same with coaches. Its not making the sport better. And this lack of delayed gratification society is driving the lack of stability. So why would I think throwing more money at players or coaches would improve the health of the sport?

                Like

    • Normaltown Mike

      the argument (as has been made ad nauseam) is that name, image and likeness are outside the purview of the NCAA.

      I don’t want the schools to pay the athletes – they are already skimming massive amounts off the football players as is. The athletes should be free to endorse/sell/market themselves just like any other person.

      Like

      • Atticus

        So Zach Evans is being recruited by _________ school. Nice. “Hi Zach we will pay you $50,000 for each signed picture…..and another $50,000 for each signed jersey.”

        Liked by 1 person

          • Atticus

            You think opening that up will lead to more stability and better health of college football?

            Like

            • Napoleon BonerFart

              How about a different hypothetical. “Hi Charley Trippi, we will give you a job as a Coca-Cola driver making more money than your father makes if you play football for our school.” Is that something that should be tolerated? Or did that ruin the sport in the 1940s?

              Like

            • You’re right – Zach Evans taking what the market will bear for his NIL is the tipping point that will kill the stability and health of the sport. Definitely not the leadership of said sport that has spent the better part of the last 40 years making decisions with no other goal than chasing the next incremental dollar with no regard for what that dollar chase means to the wellbeing of the the athletes that participate in the sport or the impact to the checkbooks of the fans that fund the sport.

              I would take your “woe upon us that our great sport doesn’t look like it used to” argument at face value if you were doing this same bitching 25 years ago when the SEC was adding a conference championship game and helping to hasten the demise of the SWC. Otherwise – just say you don’t like the idea of players being paid and leave it at that.

              Like

    • Debby Balcer

      Read about Gurley’s poverty and some of our other students. It is easy to come from a middle class background and say that the scholarship is big money but it does not pay bills for the family nor does it provide clothes etc for these kids. My daughter got a full ride to school and could still earn any money she wanted why should these kids be different?Their football schedule takes away the opportunity to earn outside dollars.

      Like

  8. Bill Glennon

    What’s the limiting principle? It won’t be just QBs that leave. Everyone on the depth chart who isn’t starting could be re-recruited and leave. At least in the pros can keep rookies for years and franchise veterans, but you want to propose a turnstile roster policy every year?

    Success in FB over history is about obtaining a competitive advantage in terms of talent, coaching and/or scheme and exploiting it to your advantage.
    UGA always fumbled that opportunity because “The Georgia Way” naively elevated outdated notions of fairness and sportsmanship while the Sabans, Meyers and Fulmers of the worlds laughed all the way to multiple championships. Now, UGA has the opportunity to finally sieze it competitive advantage. Let’s not though. Let’s kill it the “Georgia Way” by leading the charge for reform, cutting our own throats in the process. GT, AU, FL, SC series will all be very competitive again. It’ll be great.

    As a really unwise man once said: “This requires a really futile and stupid effort on someone’s part. And we’re just the guys to do it.”

    Like

  9. GruvenDawg

    Unfortunately the NCAA and NFL have failed these kids again. 135 kids leaving early for the draft. How many will get drafted? How many will make a practice squad? 102 that haven’t fulfilled their degree requirements, of those how many were in degree programs that provide a valuable career when their football dreams are done? There are only 254 draft slots. The NCAA should allow players the opportunity to get a better draft grade similar to the NBA with team evaluations, and the combine.

    I think there should be a more substantial pre-draft process for the kids choosing to enter early to give them a realistic view into their chances of getting drafted. After the process is done and they have their evaluation they can choose to withdraw their name from the draft. If after that process they choose to still enter the draft and don’t get drafted they lose their sport scholarship and eligibility but would be allowed to finish their current degree requirements on the schools dime within ten years of declaring. Hopefully that would give the student athletes the incentive to not allow schools pushing them into “easy” degree programs that don’t provide a real career option after football. In order to accommodate these changes move the second signing period until after the NFL combine so this wouldn’t affect the schools recruiting. If a player gets told he has no chance of getting drafted after the combine and team evaluations, they withdraw from the draft and finish out their eligibility for football and hopefully get a valuable degree in the process. They would have real information instead of some wannabe agent/handler or family member whispering in their ear saying the evaluations are wrong. The coach knows they are coming back prior to the final signing period so the team can still adjust accordingly.

    Regarding the transfer process. The NCAA has already shown they can’t help student athletes make an informed decision on leaving early. They don’t put the student athletes future and education as a priority in these situations. What makes any of us think they have any idea how to handle free agency in college sports.

    Like

  10. SlobberKnocker

    My biggest concern is the difficulty presented for roster management. And specifically within that the timing of each of the potential roster impact decisions by players. Early signing day in December, the transfer portal appears to be any time (not sure but Martell was after Jan 1), early entry into the draft, late signing day when most of the top players are already signed. I see it becoming incredibly difficult for a coaching staff to maintain the 85 number consistently and it also brings into question the 25/year rule. And we have all seen the impact of carrying a roster less than 85 (and, BTW, this is a specific punishment used by the NCAA).

    We evidently saw the impact of this dynamic this year with the RB position. Reports at the time indicated one of the two RB’s we were after late would likely have attended UGA if they had known Holyfield was leaving early. He hadn’t announced so they both headed elsewhere.

    I don’t know the answers but, some people smarter than me (there has to be some at the NCAA, right?) need to figure this part out.

    Like

  11. Atticus

    If Fields gets the waiver because of “racism” we are seeing the beginning of the end……

    Like

    • Napoleon BonerFart

      I think Fields’ waiver is guaranteed. I’m more interested in the other cases. Martell is basically arguing that the coaching change, resulting in his OC being elevated to HC, is reason enough to transfer. If he gets the waiver, then I think it’s open season. Which I’m fine with.

      Like

      • Atticus

        I PROMISE you if Fields gets that waiver on such a joke case……college football’s pandora’s box will be blown wide open. Its already cracked for several reasons but I know so many people jumping off that ship right now because of the exponential rise in ticket prices, joke games, players skipping games and more of this BS.

        Like

  12. Tony Barnfart

    Jacob Eason=man who I will root for. Justin Fields=little bitch.

    Sorry, that’s just how I feel about it.

    Like

  13. Mayor

    If the new transfer rules are actually free agency that is bad for college football in general an Georgia in particular. How is a HC supposed to build a team when the second best player at every position who likely will be a starter in a couple of years leaves because he’s not the starter NOW?

    Like

    • By working hard to keep his players happy staying at Georgia.

      If you own your own business, how to you keep your employees from jumping ship?

      Like

      • You keep using this comparison but it’s not very fair.

        I think employers in any industry would really struggle to retain talent if there were 128 directly competing companies that were nationally recognized actively vying for their employees. And whose job openings (player positions in CFB’s case) were so publicly advertised on daily basis.

        Not to mention the allure of glory and fame adds another component that wouldn’t typically be a factor in the business world. I’m not sitting here in my cubicle wondering just how awesome and famous I’d be if I switched over to our competitor. Apples and oranges here. Let’s not pretend they’re the same.

        Like

        • First of all, there aren’t anywhere near 127 teams competing with Georgia for football players.

          Second, I’m in a business where when the market gets hot, there is an intense effort made to attract talent in a variety of ways. If you want to chase talent, there are plenty of ways to make yourself known.

          Third, I love how some of you guys attack my argument by worrying about how the second-string offensive guard is going to be slighted by the attention the star quarterback receives. Now you tell me he’s out there chasing the allure of glory and fame just like everyone else.

          It would be a lot easier if you guys would just say you prefer for things to be like they were 15-20 years ago. I wouldn’t bother to contest your aesthetic preferences.

          Like

          • I debating putting a discrete number in my post because I’d new you would harp on that. Maybe not 128 but my point still remains, there are a lot more nationally recognized “employers” in the CFB world than most other industries. Case in point, I’m sure Notre Dame never thought they’d have to worry about losing depth to UCF.

            Second, that may be true, but its still nothing compared to the attention CFB teams get in national media. There was speculation about where Fields was going to transfer (and how he was going to receive eligibility) before he even announced his intent to transfer. You can’t possibly equate the two.

            Third, I never said anything about QB’s or second-string guards. Every athlete wants to be the best. They all aspire to play in the pros. You can’t accomplish those things by riding pine. So naturally, there’s a much larger draw to “change employment” than you’re typically business would have. Not saying its bad for players to do so, but that’s a huge factor that differentiates the two.

            Lastly, its unfair that you would assume that about me. I never said anything of the sorts. I simply disagree that those two situations are comparable. Kirby Smart retaining Justin Fields is a much different scenario than a business employer retaining their top talent. A company can give a raise, promotion, extra benefits/perks, etc. What could Kirby have done by “working hard to keep his players happy staying at Georgia?”

            Like

            • Case in point, I’m sure Notre Dame never thought they’d have to worry about losing depth to UCF.

              Wimbush was benched mid-season. ND knew they’d lose him somewhere.

              I don’t get your national point at all. In a competitive business, if you are a major producer, there will always be somebody chasing you for that. In the law profession, folks with books of business are courted or look themselves all the time. (For that matter, most of the major players are national.)

              Point three makes interesting assumptions. Arkansas had a backup punter (7 punts last season for a 30-yard average) stick his name in the portal. I doubt he has any aspirations for the NFL; he just wants to play and decided that ain’t gonna happen where he’s at now. But a marginal player like he is probably won’t have a lot of takers. Meanwhile, some of the kids you believe are just itching to jump ship are, in reality, just waiting their turn to start where they are. Why would they go elsewhere?

              I wasn’t assuming anything about you. I was pointing out that I get whipsawed by both sides on this.

              As far as what Kirby could have done with Fields, since neither you nor I have the slightest bit of insight as to what goes on inside the program, that’s nothing but rank speculation on my part. But I would think that if Fields believed he could receive better coaching and a better opportunity than what he came to believe he had at UGA, that would make him open to a move. Whether Kirby could have done anything about that is something I don’t know.

              Like

              • In the law profession, folks with books of business are courted or look themselves all the time.

                This is very different than being exposed to new job opportunities every time you turn on espn or read sports news, which these kids are doing daily. Hell, if a job search in corporate america was that easy then I’d be a happy man.

                Spur 21 hit the nail on the head in his comment. The two scenarios are not comparable. One has actual leverage to keep their employees ($$).

                Like

      • Spur 21

        How do you keep key employees? You PAY them what they are worth. Coaches don’t have that option available.

        Like

  14. W Cobb Dawg

    Players transferring willy-nilly might be good for people who want a professional minor league system, but a revolving door seems like a pretty lousy situation for colleges trying to educate people. Of course we’ll all hear how these kids weren’t properly educated when they’re pushing brooms shortly after their football careers don’t pan out.

    If you’re going free agency and players negotiating pay, then take the whole argument to the next logical step and make it a professional league. It’ll have little to do with the colleges anymore.

    Like

    • … but a revolving door seems like a pretty lousy situation for colleges trying to educate people.

      Schools accept students transferring all the time. Should that end? If not, why is it a worse situation for student-athletes?

      Like

      • W Cobb Dawg

        Yes, everyone is free to join or quit college whenever they want. My point goes beyond the join/quit question. What do colleges want to promote? Do they want student retention, commitment, and ‘normal’ matriculation? Or do they want transients?

        Players should join in the spoils of a multi-billion dollar industry. But some limits need to be set on transfers. There are considerations beyond ‘keeping the best players happy’. I’m against expanding the ‘one and done’ approach and allowing unbridled free agency. I’d argue it further perverts the mission of colleges.

        Take the college mission out of the equation and we’re all just speculating how a professional football league ought to be run.

        Like

        • Napoleon BonerFart

          Colleges want to promote winning. If Tua were interested in transferring, you had better believe Mike Gundy would take him regardless of what kind of message it sends about commitment and deferred gratification and the like.

          The fact is, college football has long been the NFL minor leagues. The NCAA has simply been effective in marketing the fiction that it’s about student athletes playing for the glory of the old alma mater. And nowadays that the amateurism veneer is wearing especially thin, it upsets some people. I get it. But the motivations of players haven’t changed in a long time.

          Like

      • Spur 21

        Very different scenario Senator.

        Like