Buckle up it’s about to get bumpy

[ZuCrew]

Somebody break this down and tell us what it really means

I look at it as inevitably. When you have a for profit model where the players don’t get paid, eventually things must change. As the NCAA slowly creeps to “ compensating” student athletes, “free agency” must become a thing. Also within the next 5-10 years, I’d look at the playoffs being expanded as well. With that same 4 teams always competing, it’s bound to get stale. When it opens to more teams, things will get interesting and this more revenue and that’s ultimately what it’s about. The money. We’re entering into a new age of college sports. Buckle up..

 

[Canesq]

This and the likeness deal will help Miami more than most think. Miami is very wxcited about the NiL deal.

Probably because Manny feels this is right in his wheelhouse. Can you imagine ads with the turnover chain from our all American five star safety on I95 especially coming off a national championship?

Or Garcia winning the heisman?

 

[Rellyrell]

If programs r going to go this route, it’s imperative that staffs r in place to PROPERLY evaluate said transfers.

Getting a guy simply b/c he’s a former blue chip in high school or comes from a prestigious school is not good enough. Why is that player in the portal? Is it PT? If they r a Jr transferring, y haven’t they gotten PT? Etc. Etc.

I just don’t want to see kids hop scotching all over the place, b/c things aren’t going their way. The portal will giveth, and the portal may screweth under these conditions.

 

[canes732]

I always wondered
are bags usually like a signing bonus or do you need to be vested before you get it and are they recurring payments?
bc when i watched the 30 for 30 on smu it seemed like it was monthly payment thing

That’s how it is u get a signing bonus and then payments as u stay on the team bc they don’t want to drop 200k and then a kid transfers away with the money

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

One of the last barriers to “re-entry” for guys who’ve left south Florida for greener pastures has just been eliminated. Like it or not that is Miami’s current role in the world, this makes it much easier for guys to return. Coupled with NIL provisions (presuming UM will be ahead of the curve here), we could be a prime spot beyond even local guys coming back. Miami has been able to pull guys in without these two advantages, I’d expect this puts us in a much better position to continue that trend.

The downside would be guys leaving UM who are already on the team. We’ve not seen that (basketball aside) to this point, and I don’t see why this would *on balance* reverse once passage is easier. Miami will lose guys it doesn’t want to (and lose players like the Johnson kid from the west coast even faster). But until Miami keeps *most* of the top SFLA talent home there will be a sizable yearly crop of guys who rode the pine for a year OOS and are ready to return.

It could be that this introduces a degree of chaos that somehow harms Miami, but I don’t think this makes the NCAA into the wild wild west. The last 3-4 cycles have been as good of a litmus test as we could’ve had for what’s about to happen next.

What’s got me concerned about the whole NIL thing, is that schools, and specifically shadow boosters, from schools like Alabama, will figure out a way to game that system as they’ve gamed the current system, and get a lot more money into their players’ hands. Legally or illegally.

If I were to lose sleep over something, that would be it.

 

[TruCane81]

Saban's evil powers must be fading...no way he lets this happen if he is at full evil strength.

 

[TheMatador]

Uh...no.

Until the IC rules are changed, we are just going to have thousands of kids in the Portal yanking on their limp d!cks.

And how sad that is for a youngster of 19, 20.

Best reserved for us old ones. We have the patience for dealing with limpness. Plus 20 year olds shouldn’t have to resort to Viagra.

 

[NJshoreCane]

By far, THE EASIEST FIX is to decouple HS and Portal ICs, and to let a school have as many "new transfer" ICs as you LOSE from kids transferring out.

Makes way too much sense.

 

[NJshoreCane]

What’s got me concerned about the whole NIL thing, is that schools, and specifically shadow boosters, from schools like Alabama, will figure out a way to game that system as they’ve gamed the current system, and get a lot more money into their players’ hands. Legally or illegally.

If I were to lose sleep over something, that would be it.

Agree, but some of the things to consider are
the number of legal business opportunities and long term business opportunities.

 

[Trav]

Makes way too much sense.

Or just keep the IC #s the same for high schoolers and have any transfers count towards the 85 max.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Or just keep the IC #s the same for high schoolers and have any transfers count towards the 85 max.

It's not the worst idea, but it still creates the (potential) incentive to push the HS kids out if they don't excel in Y1 or Y2.

 

[canecrazy23]

As we continue to see, it is much easier to "legalize" and "regulate" an industry, rather than to just keep denying the inevitable.

 

[hotshot]

Cuts both ways. An environment where it's easy to gain, or lose, talent.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Intentional.

 

[Cryptical Envelopment]

The old bag will become the new time-release bag.

 

[Trav]

It's not the worst idea, but it still creates the (potential) incentive to push the HS kids out if they don't excel in Y1 or Y2.

Sure, but then those kids could blow up somewhere else. There's no perfect scenario but they can't open up the transfer rules then leave all those kids in limbo.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Sure, but then those kids could blow up somewhere else. There's no perfect scenario but they can't open up the transfer rules then leave all those kids in limbo.

Again, some people (particularly the athletes) act like this is just the same as signing a free agent contract in football. "Hey, I'm on a new team, yee-haw."

Kids are in school, they are trying to earn diplomas. The NCAA cares (or pretends to care) about the academic side of things. They are not big fans of the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world trying to force kids to leave after a year or two.

Sure, we can hope that "kids could blow up somewhere else", but the reality is that many transfers do NOT end up any better at School #2. We've seen that for decades.

I'm not making the case that kids should NEVER leave Alabama or Clemson, but only that if you leave the rule very open-ended, you will soon see high-pressure push-outs at the top schools. And I don't think the NCAA will want that, even if we can hope that a transfer will always benefit these kids.

I do agree, these kids shouldn't be left in limbo. And (for the short term) maybe it would solve the current numbers crunch to just let everyone get up to 85 with transfers. But that won't fix the issue for the long-term.

We need policies that will work every year, and that coaches and players BOTH can rely upon.

 

[CaneFanWNY]

Need to remove the IC rule and just hard cap rosters at 85 scholarships.

Im all for this rule change on transfers, as it was hypocritical as all fvck to punish student athletes for finding a new home while coaches can bail at any given moment with 0 consequence...but as a few in here already mentioned, this is also gonna open up a giant cluster**** with transfers and high school prospects

But.... leave it to the NCAA to create 2 problems in the process of fixing 1.

 

[Warrior808]

Again, some people (particularly the athletes) act like this is just the same as signing a free agent contract in football. "Hey, I'm on a new team, yee-haw."

Kids are in school, they are trying to earn diplomas. The NCAA cares (or pretends to care) about the academic side of things. They are not big fans of the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world trying to force kids to leave after a year or two.

Sure, we can hope that "kids could blow up somewhere else", but the reality is that many transfers do NOT end up any better at School #2. We've seen that for decades.

I'm not making the case that kids should NEVER leave Alabama or Clemson, but only that if you leave the rule very open-ended, you will soon see high-pressure push-outs at the top schools. And I don't think the NCAA will want that, even if we can hope that a transfer will always benefit these kids.

I do agree, these kids shouldn't be left in limbo. And (for the short term) maybe it would solve the current numbers crunch to just let everyone get up to 85 with transfers. But that won't fix the issue for the long-term.

We need policies that will work every year, and that coaches and players BOTH can rely upon.

I would take your model of making additional ICs for transfers available based on each player you lose to the portal but with one adjustment. Make the additional ICs available the following season after its all tallied up. That way teams are incentivized to try and keep players or risk playing slightly shorthanded that year but they can still remedy the attrition and keep healthy long term roster numbers.

It also eliminates teams "cutting" a player to make room for transfer they have in mind.

Not a perfect compromise but it solves a lot of the problems and takes the needs of both sides into account.

 

[Trav]

Again, some people (particularly the athletes) act like this is just the same as signing a free agent contract in football. "Hey, I'm on a new team, yee-haw."

Kids are in school, they are trying to earn diplomas. The NCAA cares (or pretends to care) about the academic side of things. They are not big fans of the Alabamas and Clemsons of the world trying to force kids to leave after a year or two.

Sure, we can hope that "kids could blow up somewhere else", but the reality is that many transfers do NOT end up any better at School #2. We've seen that for decades.

I'm not making the case that kids should NEVER leave Alabama or Clemson, but only that if you leave the rule very open-ended, you will soon see high-pressure push-outs at the top schools. And I don't think the NCAA will want that, even if we can hope that a transfer will always benefit these kids.

I do agree, these kids shouldn't be left in limbo. And (for the short term) maybe it would solve the current numbers crunch to just let everyone get up to 85 with transfers. But that won't fix the issue for the long-term.

We need policies that will work every year, and that coaches and players BOTH can rely upon.

But that could work itself out too. All things being equal the Sabans and Dabos would rather have guys come up in their system under their development than a bunch of one and done transfers. And as it is now they have to sell recruits on being patient for a few years because of their depth. It doesn't help their reputation if they're forcing a bunch of guys are getting forced out if it's taking them a bit longer to climb the depth chart. And in the case of Bama and Clemson, it's not like they have all these recruiting misses that they would NEED to force young guys out for transfers.