OK, ALL YOU CURRENT OR FORMER COACHES

[marshallrc13]

I have coached on the HS and intramural levels being in the military for 22 yrs. So maybe I am just naïve. I see this stuff going on at Texas A&M with the transfers and quite frankly you see it all the time. My question is this, other than knowing a team's playbook and signals, is there a reason why coaches are douches and block kids from going to certain schools and conferences? I mean it obviously didn't work out. Be sincere, wish the kid well, and help him find a new school. I know this is a business, but come on man. These are 18-22 yr old kids trying to make good decisions for themselves and start their lives. And now, as a coach, you turn into a total ****, and say **** off after telling him what he wants to hear for a number of years!!!! Thoughts?

 

[Nickkcin]

I have coached on the HS and intramural levels being in the military for 22 yrs. So maybe I am just naïve. I see this stuff going on at Texas A&M with the transfers and quite frankly you see it all the time. My question is this, other than knowing a team's playbook and signals, is there a reason why coaches are douches and block kids from going to certain schools and conferences? I mean it obviously didn't work out. Be sincere, wish the kid well, and help him find a new school. I know this is a business, but come on man. These are 18-22 yr old kids trying to make good decisions for themselves and start their lives. And now, as a coach, you turn into a total ****, and say **** off after telling him what he wants to hear for a number of years!!!! Thoughts?

I'm not releasing a kid to any team I play with his remaining eligibility. That's usually the only reason for blocking certain schools. But if I were the coach, I'd be helping the kid look for another school based on their situation and who I know in the coaching world. I may even entice him to try FCS for a year and then transfer back up to the FBS level.

 

[ben]

I have coached on the HS and intramural levels being in the military for 22 yrs. So maybe I am just naïve. I see this stuff going on at Texas A&M with the transfers and quite frankly you see it all the time. My question is this, other than knowing a team's playbook and signals, is there a reason why coaches are douches and block kids from going to certain schools and conferences? I mean it obviously didn't work out. Be sincere, wish the kid well, and help him find a new school. I know this is a business, but come on man. These are 18-22 yr old kids trying to make good decisions for themselves and start their lives. And now, as a coach, you turn into a total ****, and say **** off after telling him what he wants to hear for a number of years!!!! Thoughts?

It depends. When Marve left Miami there were clearly some issues with him reaching out to other coaches before talking to Shannon. But under standard circumstances, blocking a kid is malicious, petty and unnecessary ...

 

[5XNC]

Lol why would you transfer down and then transfer back up?

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

Only speaking on the TAMU situation...but TAMU being in the SECW is a disadvantage, Kenny Hill wouldn't have been able to transfer to TCU if they were in the B12. And that Murray kid can transfer to UT since they're in the B12, and don't play TAMU anymore. And then you have Houston who's in the AAC, shoot, Sumlin did those kids a favor, they don't have to leave the State.

 

[Billy D Williams]

It's a ridiculous rule, petty, self serving and allows institutions and coaches to restrict a kids attendance, which is not legal under any other circumstances where there wasn't a criminal violation. Players sign a NLI and are not the property of the institution. Coaches sign a contract, are paid and are in a sense the property of the institution, but are not legally restricted to work any where, nor do they have to remain unemployed for a year. Scholarships are not 4 year binding agreements, they are renewed each year at the institutions choosing. Scholarship athletes should have the option to accept the renewal or decline on a yearly basis as well. This is nothing else, but a violation of these kids rights to transfer to the school of their choosing like any other student and be eligible to play immediately after fulfilling his or her yearly scholarship agreement.

 

[marshallrc13]

It's a ridiculous rule, petty, self serving and allows institutions and coaches to restrict a kids attendance, which is not legal under any other circumstances where there wasn't a criminal violation. Players sign a NLI and are not the property of the institution. Coaches sign a contract, are paid and are in a sense the property of the institution, but are not legally restricted to work any where, nor do they have to remain unemployed for a year. Scholarships are not 4 year binding agreements, they are renewed each year at the institutions choosing. Scholarship athletes should have the option to accept the renewal or decline on a yearly basis as well. This is nothing else, but a violation of these kids rights to transfer to the school of their choosing like any other student and be eligible to play immediately after fulfilling his or her yearly scholarship agreement.

I agree with you. Is there an actual rule in place or is it just a coaches decision? I know if you transfer without graduating you have to sit a year but I am certain if the coach isn't being a **** you can go anywhere. Just don't understand the logic behind these decisions other than the coach being a ***** and immature about the situation.

 

[JerseyCanes]

I'm Not letting a kid Go to a School that I compete against the Following year... Especially if he went through spring practice. Tactically its not a good thing

If we don't play them the next year.... he can go wherever you want....

JC

 

[pyhooya]

They should let kids transfer every year and not have to sit out a year. One year they can play at A&M..then play for TCU...after that to Florida State and then to Ohio State... where ever they have the best chance to play and win that year. No reason to hold kids to their commitment.

 

[whoopingcane]

You don't give any other team a competitive advantage. This isn't a participation contest. It's freakin' football. If they want to transfer, that's their problem.

Guess what Billy? You can't go to anyone in our conference or on our schedule and you have sit out a year. Now, GTFO.

 

[KANE]

Not letting a kid go to a school that's on my schedule. ****, the kid knows all of our calls, signals, and audibles. You don't think if I had a kid at UMiami, and he transferred to a FSU, that he wouldn't tell the staff at FSU our calls?! If u don't believe he will, then you're just naive.

 

[kryptonite]

I wouldn't want the kid playing for a rival, but beyond that I'd hope that a coach would help the kid land on his feet. The truth is that teams pretty much own the kid once he signs. I don't agree with the power in the relationship being so one sided, but if the kids could come and go as they pleased they would. You would literally have kids transferring every year and I don't think that's best for them or the schools. Look at HS in S. Florida...kids transfer all the time. Its basically a joke, and I would hope that college can be a little better than that.

 

[capefearcane]

In general I agree, including the "not within the conference", or to a non-conference competitor - i.e. say UF if we were to revive our series with them. However, it is a "commitment" and sitting out a year, especially in an educational environment makes sense. If however, the potential transferee has special circumstances such as family illness, the institution drops the player's academic area of study, or it's clear that the player will not rise above a sub position; then there should be special consideration - perhaps by an independent arbiter.

Interesting and thougtful post, thanks OP.

 

[marshallrc13]

You don't give any other team a competitive advantage. This isn't a participation contest. It's freakin' football. If they want to transfer, that's their problem.

Guess what Billy? You can't go to anyone in our conference or on our schedule and you have sit out a year. Now, GTFO.

I get that. I guess even though we all a general population are always looking for standards. My thing is, as some others have brought up, what if there are particular situations that come up? Like family illness, coaching changes, etc? I think those warrant a different set of rules. I don't know. I just think these coaches get paid big money to do their job. If they feel like letting one kid go to a rival is going to hinder their chances of winning then maybe they are in the wrong business. Just my opinion. I personally, if someone wanted to transfer because things just weren't working out, would let them go wherever they want and help them in the process.

 

[whoopingcane]

You don't give any other team a competitive advantage. This isn't a participation contest. It's freakin' football. If they want to transfer, that's their problem.

Guess what Billy? You can't go to anyone in our conference or on our schedule and you have sit out a year. Now, GTFO.

I get that. I guess even though we all a general population are always looking for standards. My thing is, as some others have brought up, what if there are particular situations that come up? Like family illness, coaching changes, etc? I think those warrant a different set of rules. I don't know. I just think these coaches get paid big money to do their job. If they feel like letting one kid go to a rival is going to hinder their chances of winning then maybe they are in the wrong business. Just my opinion. I personally, if someone wanted to transfer because things just weren't working out, would let them go wherever they want and help them in the process.

Oh, family illness? Sorry, now GTFO.

Coaching change? Sorry, now GTFO.

Lost in the depth chart? Sorry, now GTFO.

Lose a kidney? Sorry, now GTFO.

 

[marshallrc13]

You don't give any other team a competitive advantage. This isn't a participation contest. It's freakin' football. If they want to transfer, that's their problem.

Guess what Billy? You can't go to anyone in our conference or on our schedule and you have sit out a year. Now, GTFO.

I get that. I guess even though we all a general population are always looking for standards. My thing is, as some others have brought up, what if there are particular situations that come up? Like family illness, coaching changes, etc? I think those warrant a different set of rules. I don't know. I just think these coaches get paid big money to do their job. If they feel like letting one kid go to a rival is going to hinder their chances of winning then maybe they are in the wrong business. Just my opinion. I personally, if someone wanted to transfer because things just weren't working out, would let them go wherever they want and help them in the process.

Oh, family illness? Sorry, now GTFO.

Coaching change? Sorry, now GTFO.

Lost in the depth chart? Sorry, now GTFO.

Lose a kidney? Sorry, now GTFO.

You're too funny man.

 

[killa1storm]

It's just coaches being petty.

In most cases when a kid 'transfers' he has just not had his scholarship renewed. So coaches are in essence cutting kids and then still getting to control where those kids can and cannot go, its bull****. It's the equivalent of someone dumping their gf and then telling her who she can or can't date. The tactical disadvantage argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny either. Good coaches change their signals from game to game much less season to season. Likewise with terminology, unless the defense or offense is in your huddle them possibly knowing terminology still won't make a difference.

 

[Salt]

They should let kids transfer every year and not have to sit out a year. One year they can play at A&M..then play for TCU...after that to Florida State and then to Ohio State... where ever they have the best chance to play and win that year. No reason to hold kids to their commitment.

then what the **** does a commitment mean?

 

[MIATL]

The block rule is permitted to keep schools from recruiting and enticing kids to leave their current school.

It's also designed to make kids really focus on their signing day decision, and commit to the actual school, and not a coach.

I don't think the rule is overly punitive. And the fact that a kid can graduate early, transfer without penalty, and still have multiple years to play is consistent with the true mission of college football, IMO.

Coker got 2 full years at Alabama because he graduated in 3 years, and red-shirted his freshman season at FSU.

 

[pyhooya]

They should let kids transfer every year and not have to sit out a year. One year they can play at A&M..then play for TCU...after that to Florida State and then to Ohio State... where ever they have the best chance to play and win that year. No reason to hold kids to their commitment.

then what the **** does a commitment mean?

I was being facetious. I think coaches should be able to limit them. Problem with kids today, want everything handed to them