This transfer rule

In its inaugural year has really took off. Makes me wonder in future if recruits and/or parents will try to use this as leverage for immediate playing time.

Don’t start or play me or my kid we will shut it down after 4 games and apply for transfer. Or if you redshirt me or my kid initially, we apply for transfer.

I’m sure people will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the current transfer rule is a few years old: that players who’ve graduated are free to transfer without sitting out a year. Those who have graduated still have to. I think the only difference this year is that “transfer portal” that allows coaches to contact players.

Can anyone clarify?

As to your point, though, I agree. I’m not sure I like it. Might give players a bit too much leverage.

Yea my point was with new recruits, excersizing the red shirt transfer if unhappy initially.
Grad transfers can go without question but seems to be a rise in those to.

I think not as much as you would think for younger players, the big deal is for players who have (or will that year) graduated, but have a year or two of eligibility left.

Unless I am wrong (and that happens a lot) this is how it works for say a Freshman:

Has 5 years to play 4. Time starts when they enroll. So:

a. Year 1, plays 5 or more games, is unhappy, decides to transfer. Year one was not a “red shirt year”, so “Freshman year” has been burned. Has to sit out year 2, which is a “red shirt” year. Has years 3, 4 and 5 to play at new school.
b. Year 1, plays 4 games or less, is unhappy, decides to transfer (decision could be announced in September after the season, no difference). Year one is considered a “red shirt” year. Has to sit out year 2, which is not a red shirt year, is his “Freshman” year, but still can’t play. Has years 3, 4 and 5 to play at new school.

No difference between a and b.

Obviously where there is a big difference is if the kid does not have to sit out. Could happen for various reasons, but the one we see the most often is he has graduated. So, there he is playing his say 4th year and doesn’t like his playing time, he can pull a Clemson QB and stop playing before getting to 5 games and transfer. That does count as his “red shirt” year, not a year of playing, and since he doesn’t have to sit out to transfer, does him a lot of good.

There are other reasons a kid can transfer without sitting out that could let a younger player take advantage of the rule. The rule that lets you transfer closer to home due to a family emergency. (The running back that went to USC then transferred to UofA, can’t think of his name.) Under the old rule, if he had played in 1 game at USC, while he didn’t have to sit out, he would be a Sophomore at UofA the next year. Under the new rule, if he had played in 4 games or less, could play the next year at UofA as a “Freshman.” He would have used his “red shirt” year at USC and would only have 4 years to play 4 at UofA.

I could be wrong on this. Let me know if I am.

Basically most of the new rules and allowances are the result of the schools and the NCAA losing influence to money, money and more money. College football is to a great degree no longer an extra cirricular activity but the TV powers run the show and the schools are fighting to get in line for part of that money. Grantland Rice would not be happy these days.

Any players who have not graduated would be like this:

Quit playing Oct. 1, 2018 or so and you wouldn’t be eligible to play again until Sept., 2020.

So I don’t see that as that big a deal.

But it certainly is with those who have or will graduate within the year.

Yep get all that,
Now a kid plays in 5 or more games his freshman year, so no redshirt. In the next coming years (1 or 2) he becomes unhappy for whatever reasons he can shut it down at 4 games, excersize the redshirt rule then & transfer with immediate illegibility the next fall at new school.

Another scenario would be a mutiny of multiple eligible players excersizing the redshirt rule & all transferring to same school or different schools.

Or even a younger player(s) excersizing the redshirt rule to follow a grad transfer to another school.

All of that seems over the top now, but it could happen in future.
Could put coaches & programs at the mercy of his better players. Becomes vague who is in control of the ship, the captain or shipmates.

Unless he has graduated, I don’t think the bolded part is correct. But could be wrong. If kid is in his 2nd or third year (hasn’t graduated). Plays in 3 games. Gets mad, says he is through playing and transferring, YES, that year is a “red shirt” year but I THINK he still has to sit out the NEXT year. So, if he played year 1, played year 2, played 3 games year 3, year 3 becomes a “red shirt” year, transfers, still has to sit out year 4, can play one more year at new school. That is how I see it.

The big, limiting thing is must have graduated be accepted in Grad school. That limits a whole bunch.

He wouldn’t have immediate illegibility unless he is a graduate. He would still have to sit a year.

Unless the kid is a grad transfer or gets a waiver (rare but becoming more common), he has to sit out a transfer year no matter when he bails. Kid quits as a freshman in September 2019 and decides to transfer, his next ability to play would be September 2021.

Swine’s right. Unless a person has graduated, if he chooses to transfer, he will lose at least one year of eligibility in all cases.

Broderick Green

Yes, thanks!!!

USC gave Broderick a waiver because of some family consideration as I recall, so he was eligible immediately.

Yes, that was my point.