Manny really understands the IC rules and issues

[TheOriginalCane]

Hale: What's your thoughts on loosening the restraints on transfers? Should they be immediately eligible?

Diaz: Before we get the transfer house in order, we have to figure out how to replace the initial scholarships. What happens is, you can use three or four guys at one position, but because we made a rule to stop over-signing, that rule is now ironically hurting player movement. Let's say we give them free access and be immediately eligible. There's nowhere for them to go because we're bound by only bringing in 25 initials each year. You have to put something in place where, if a player's in good standing at your school academically, and opts to transfer, that you can replace that number. Because otherwise, none of us will be at your 85 [allowed scholarships], which hurts our depth but also offers less opportunity for them to move.

The coaches I speak to, I think what everybody wants is some sort of uniformity. What I've seen firsthand is everyone wants to weigh in in the court of public opinion about the waiver process and it's really hard to know why some guys get waivers and some don't. It's easy to judge from the outside. It's unfair on certain kids because it puts them in the crosshairs. I think whatever we decide, we have to make it uniform -- everybody gets a waiver, nobody does, you have to sit but you can get a year back -- so when people go that route, they know what they're getting into.

Manny Diaz on Miami vs. Florida, the transfer portal and more

Manny Diaz wants to see the state of Florida return to its glory days -- where if you're the best team in the state, then you're a contender for the national championship.

www.espn.com

 

[westcoastcanes]

His take makes sense. If the transfer market is going to be allowed to be as active as it is seemingly trending, an IC should be made immediately available for a good standing departure that is the players decision especially.

Probably need to emphasize the good standing though. Teams should probably have to pay the price for filling their roster with poor students that aren't eligible or have behavior issues that get the boot to a community college.

 

[calinative umstudent]

Technically you already can replace the Counter immediately, it just has to be with a player that has been on campus for a year...

So basically a player that is an IC transfers away, then you can use his scholarship on a Walk-On. Now for most schools this isn't actually very good, because the majority of walk ons don't have any shot of earning PT. But for someone like Bama it definitely can and HAS worked - because they bring in top ranked players (without a scholarship) and tell them if they wait a year they'll be put on scholarship (basically greyshirting). The next year a player transfers, and the player that had to wait a yr can now be given a scholarship without counting as one of the 25 IC's.

But yeah I agree with Manny here. A)Kids should be allowed to transfer the 1st time without Sitting. B)Schools should regain an IC if a player transfers when the cause isn't discipline or grades.

 

[2.0]

His take makes sense. If the transfer market is going to be allowed to be as active as it is seemingly trending, an IC should be made immediately available for a good standing departure that is the players decision especially.

Probably need to emphasize the good standing though. Teams should probably have to pay the price for filling their roster with poor students that aren't eligible or have behavior issues that get the boot to a community college.

Well you cant transfer to another school unless you have atleast a 2.0 so that is probably what he meant.

 

[g8rh8rMD]

Hale: What's your thoughts on loosening the restraints on transfers? Should they be immediately eligible?

Diaz: Before we get the transfer house in order, we have to figure out how to replace the initial scholarships. What happens is, you can use three or four guys at one position, but because we made a rule to stop over-signing, that rule is now ironically hurting player movement. Let's say we give them free access and be immediately eligible. There's nowhere for them to go because we're bound by only bringing in 25 initials each year. You have to put something in place where, if a player's in good standing at your school academically, and opts to transfer, that you can replace that number. Because otherwise, none of us will be at your 85 [allowed scholarships], which hurts our depth but also offers less opportunity for them to move.

The coaches I speak to, I think what everybody wants is some sort of uniformity. What I've seen firsthand is everyone wants to weigh in in the court of public opinion about the waiver process and it's really hard to know why some guys get waivers and some don't. It's easy to judge from the outside. It's unfair on certain kids because it puts them in the crosshairs. I think whatever we decide, we have to make it uniform -- everybody gets a waiver, nobody does, you have to sit but you can get a year back -- so when people go that route, they know what they're getting into.

Manny Diaz on Miami vs. Florida, the transfer portal and more

Manny Diaz wants to see the state of Florida return to its glory days -- where if you're the best team in the state, then you're a contender for the national championship.

www.espn.com

I should hope to holy **** he does.

 

[OriginalCanesCanesCanes]

I can guarantee you that Nick Satan is against this. But only because of his love for the college game, right fellas?

 

[Ethnicsands]

Manny makes really good points. the math doesn’t work in the current model. Schools need to be able to flex in effect, or there will be an overall net reduction in opportunities for kids.

 

[2.0]

Manny makes really good points. the math doesn’t work in the current model. Schools need to be able to flex in effect, or there will be an overall net reduction in opportunities for kids.

I believe it should be the same if a player lives for the draft or is medically disqualified.

 

[g8rh8rMD]

Manny makes really good points. the math doesn’t work in the current model. Schools need to be able to flex in effect, or there will be an overall net reduction in opportunities for kids.

Well, that's true for some. The math works just fine when you are Baga or Clem$on and can get away with paying first round draft picks to stick around for another year, or to pay 5 stars to sit on the bench for two years before getting a chance to play.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Well, that's true for some. The math works just fine when you are Baga or Clem$on and can get away with paying first round draft picks to stick around for another year, or to pay 5 stars to sit on the bench for two years before getting a chance to play.

Again, the point has been made over and over again...it is not just the Bama and Clemson are good, they are also state schools. They don't convince Jerry Jeudy to walk on, they find a local kid who can pay cheap in-state tuition, and they keep that kid on the back burner.

It doesn't completely transform their roster, those kids are likely special-teamers, but it does keep them at a more respectable 85. The #81 to #85 kids at Bama and Clemson are better than our collection of walk-ons, that's a certainty. But players 81-85 aren't what makes Alabama and Clemson national champions.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

And, to my original point, I like the fact that Manny understands all the pros and cons and nuances of this issue, and can speak articulately about such subjects. I think that ESPN will continue to go to him in the future for commentary on college football issues.

 

[Ethnicsands]

Well, that's true for some. The math works just fine when you are Baga or Clem$on and can get away with paying first round draft picks to stick around for another year, or to pay 5 stars to sit on the bench for two years before getting a chance to play.

You are missing the math point. If you get only 25 mew starters ina year, amd LOIs count whether a kid gets in or not, amd the 85 kan limit holds, then there will be relatively few spots available for teamsfers at top programs. That's math. Same flr Alabama as Virginia.

 

[westcoastcanes]

You are missing the math point. If you get only 25 mew starters ina year, amd LOIs count whether a kid gets in or not, amd the 85 kan limit holds, then there will be relatively few spots available for teamsfers at top programs. That's math. Same flr Alabama as Virginia.

this hurt

 

[Cajuncane]

And, to my original point, I like the fact that Manny understands all the pros and cons and nuances of this issue, and can speak articulately about such subjects. I think that ESPN will continue to go to him in the future for commentary on college football issues.

I’m hoping his first in-depth interview is how did you smash UFAG so bad in your first games HC...

 

[SpikeUM]

I disagree about changing the IC rule. Florida this year is a perfect example for my point, why should they be let off the hook because they signed kids who didnt have a prayer of qualifying and/or had serious character issues?

 

[g8rh8rMD]

You are missing the math point. If you get only 25 mew starters ina year, amd LOIs count whether a kid gets in or not, amd the 85 kan limit holds, then there will be relatively few spots available for teamsfers at top programs. That's math. Same flr Alabama as Virginia.

If you have less people leave early in the draft or transfer out, that improves your math. Not sure how it’s missing the point or difficult to understand when I point that out. I was being a bit facetious anyway.

 

[SayWhat]

Very slippery slope where you're forced to play your QB, WR, etc in waiting when you darn well they aren't ready. If you don't, they are free to transfer to the first coach who promises them playing time.

 

[grover]

It’s a free country. Kids should be able to transfer without penalty. They do in So Florida high schools all the time. Coaches can come and go whenever they want too. And the programs they leave should be able to replace them within the 85 cap.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I disagree about changing the IC rule. Florida this year is a perfect example for my point, why should they be let off the hook because they signed kids who didnt have a prayer of qualifying and/or had serious character issues?

First, there is already a rule which penalizes teams that take academic non-qualifiers. And I do not think the proposed rule of allowing a replacement IC for upperclassmen in good academic standing who transfer would have applied to either of the players who left due to criminal activity.

 

[SpikeUM]

First, there is already a rule which penalizes teams that take academic non-qualifiers. And I do not think the proposed rule of allowing a replacement IC for upperclassmen in good academic standing who transfer would have applied to either of the players who left due to criminal activity.

Details, details!