🏈 Georgia changes transfer policy under Smart

[rammerjammer]

Most non-competes will not hold up in court.

Correct. Alabama is a right to work state and ultimately the no-compete is useless. Unless you folded it up and wiped your butt with it.

I signed one several years ago and went to work for a customer, which the company viewed as a competitor. Sent me a cease and desist letter. That was as far as it ever went. I worked for that customer for 17 years.

 

[TerryP]

There are two situations I can see a NCA working in college football.

One is with assistants and them moving to a school within the same conference. One could argue "trade secrets" due to game plays, playbook, organizational situations, etc.

Secondly is with head coaches especially when these clauses are built in to their original contract. A court could easily see that as part of the compensation package.

I don't see either stopping actual employment. I do see both resulting in some kind of financial penalty.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

Correct. Alabama is a right to work state and ultimately the no-compete is useless. Unless you folded it up and wiped your butt with it.

I signed one several years ago and went to work for a customer, which the company viewed as a competitor. Sent me a cease and desist letter. That was as far as it ever went. I worked for that customer for 17 years.

That was true in the past. There's been a new law passed in Alabama, just last year, I believe, that is more restrictive and enforceable.

States considered right to work states can still have enforceable non-compete laws.

 

[MacLittle13]

Let's assume this is 'legal' for a minute. I want to know how this works.

Let's say a school comes out of NSD with a perfect number of 85. The coach leaves, like Richt, and ends up with 10 players that wants to follow him. How does the original school get back to a level playing field? Now, they're starting the fall with 75—in essence just like a school that had been placed on probation and had scholly's removed. That school has to go through several years of classes to get back to the 85 number.

What do you suggest keeping the field level? You can't allow that school to sign 35 to make up for the 10 because that, again, creates an unlevel playing field with that school up 10 on their closest competitors.

What happens when your next "big name" is hired? IF kids are going to flock to a proven coach, which they in all likelihood would, now you've got another situation where one school has an advantage over others.

While this seems like a good idea at first glance, it goes against the very nature of the NCAA—an athletic organization run on a socialistic model. I've seen several say this needs to change, but I've yet to see one person explain how. If it isn't 'fair' to all involved, it's not going to pass without a lot of flak an unintended consequences.

I get your point, and that would be a consideration that would have to be made, but I am not talking about 10 players. The situation at present is one player. That kid should be able to go if he wants to. Sure, make him sit out a year, but to tell him that he CAN NOT go is ridiculous. Losing a year of eligibility is enough of a deterrant to keep most from ever transferring.

 

[TerryP]

Sure, make him sit out a year, but to tell him that he CAN NOT go is ridiculous.

Ridiculous? I don't know.

Odd timing considering it's a brand new system and there's nothing to be lost IF he/anyone chose Miami? Most certainly.

Within the last year one of the Quarterbacks out of A&M transferred and there was a little blurb—just here and there, mind you—about Sumlin restricting schools with his transfer. I can't recall which QB it was :eyeroll: but the schools listed were all the schools on A&M's schedule. If I'm not mistaken the same thing happened at USC recently; Town's transfer, maybe?

Consider: Let's say Cooper wanted to transfer and he wanted to go to LSU. Would you want him to transfer there considering his extensive knowledge of our playbook? I wouldn't. And, I wouldn't mind AT ALL if the staff chose to restrict his movement.

 

[JoshB]

Most non-competes will not hold up in court.

Thats true, especially for independent contractors, but its all about whether you have the money and the time to fight it (being a big wrestling fan the WWE is one example. They typically put wrestlers on 90 non-compete clauses in their contracts meaning they cant go to another wrestling (or MMA or boxing) company for 90 days after being released. If someone was willing to take that to court it would 100% be thrown out but no one ever fights it because a) you are never going to get it thrown out before that 90 days is over so its pointless and b) usually it isnt worth it to spend the money... but as of recent they have put longer non competes on wrestlers, a year on a cpl guys a few years ago who were willing to fight it and it got thrown out).

 

[ElephantStomp]

Ridiculous? I don't know.

Odd timing considering it's a brand new system and there's nothing to be lost IF he/anyone chose Miami? Most certainly.

Within the last year one of the Quarterbacks out of A&M transferred and there was a little blurb—just here and there, mind you—about Sumlin restricting schools with his transfer. I can't recall which QB it was :eyeroll: but the schools listed were all the schools on A&M's schedule. If I'm not mistaken the same thing happened at USC recently; Town's transfer, maybe?

Consider: Let's say Cooper wanted to transfer and he wanted to go to LSU. Would you want him to transfer there considering his extensive knowledge of our playbook? I wouldn't. And, I wouldn't mind AT ALL if the staff chose to restrict his movement.

I'm of the opinion that it is ridiculous that a kid can't transfer to any school that he chooses when coaches can come and go as they please. I don't like the playbook argument because whether we changed terminology or not Kirby has a vast knowledge of out system and He was allowed to leave on his own free will.

 

[ElephantStomp]

Not a fan of the change of transfer rules.

Big money coaches can leave without penalty, but God forbid a kid want to go to another school. A school shouldn't have the right to determine where a kid attends school

 

[Tidestalker]

Not a fan of the change of transfer rules.

Big money coaches can leave without penalty, but God forbid a kid want to go to another school. A school shouldn't have the right to determine where a kid attends school

Agreed... As I mentioned earlier in the post... Only in college football can this type of sh*t hold up. It's painfully outdated, yet a big part of why the adults are cashing in so comfortably.

 

[TerryP]

Not a fan of the change of transfer rules.

Big money coaches can leave without penalty, but God forbid a kid want to go to another school. A school shouldn't have the right to determine where a kid attends school

That keeps being said, but it's simply not the case anymore.

In this thread we've seen "coaches can move to any school." They can't, as evidenced by the recent deal with Bielema. We've see (on this forum, more than once in the last month) that coaches leave without penalty. Ask Coach Mac if he thinks paying 1.7 million (IIRC) out of his own pocket isn't a penalty. Or, perhaps offer some sage advice to Chavis and his court issues right now with LSU.

This isn't directed at you, Stomp, but I"m going to tack it on here for 'thoughts.'

People complain when a kid changes his commitment to another school. "They don't value the word commit" is a popular phrase heard when a kid changes his mind. But, when the kid has attended classes, has not only signed but been involved in every aspect of a scholarshipped athlete, and then decides to move on it's "let him out of his verbal, and written, commitments."

Ya know, this story starts with Turman, the RB who recently left UGA after being there two years. Two years, including a surgery paid for by UGA, at an average of roughly 49K per individual in football yet people are upset about UGA exercising some leverage? After UGA has more than 100K invested in this kid?

The more I think about all of this, the more I'm lead to believe the argument lacks a solid foundation. I see a lot that seemingly think along the lines of "that sounds good" but they don't seem to take into account every aspect. Ideology vs practicality?

 

[Tidestalker]

That keeps being said, but it's simply not the case anymore.

In this thread we've seen "coaches can move to any school." They can't, as evidenced by the recent deal with Bielema. We've see (on this forum, more than once in the last month) that coaches leave without penalty. Ask Coach Mac if he thinks paying 1.7 million (IIRC) out of his own pocket isn't a penalty. Or, perhaps offer some sage advice to Chavis and his court issues right now with LSU.

This isn't directed at you, Stomp, but I"m going to tack it on here for 'thoughts.'

People complain when a kid changes his commitment to another school. "They don't value the word commit" is a popular phrase heard when a kid changes his mind. But, when the kid has attended classes, has not only signed but been involved in every aspect of a scholarshipped athlete, and then decides to move on it's "let him out of his verbal, and written, commitments."

Ya know, this story starts with Turman, the RB who recently left UGA after being there two years. Two years, including a surgery paid for by UGA, at an average of roughly 49K per individual in football yet people are upset about UGA exercising some leverage? After UGA has more than 100K invested in this kid?

The more I think about all of this, the more I'm lead to believe the argument lacks a solid foundation. I see a lot that seemingly think along the lines of "that sounds good" but they don't seem to take into account every aspect. Ideology vs practicality?

Do you seriously think Coach Mac lost out on 1.7 Mill? As in, he was 1.7 mill short of what he would have made? Or do you have another definition of "out of pocket"?

Bottom line is Coaches have a much more control in their career than a student-athlete, despite the Student-athlete's being responsible for the coaches ability to make more money. In other words, if the player has a good sophomore year, he gets nothing in return. The Coach on the other hand gets a raise and new job offer. That's the reality.

Not to mention, the Coach gets to negotiate his own contract... The student athlete signs the exact same agreement at Alabama as he would UAB. Albeit with the possibility of slight differences in transfer policies, most all schools want to control where the kid is going.

And again, I don't blame the coaches for using the strict policies. It's the system that is ridiculous.

 

[TerryP]

Do you seriously think Coach Mac lost out on 1.7 Mill? As in, he was 1.7 mill short of what he would have made? Or do you have another definition of "out of pocket"?

OK, let's look at it in layman's terms. Let's say one left a company making 25K per year and took a job making 35K, but in his first year he only made 25K due to the contract with his former employer. Do you think that's 10K he lost? Mac is having to pay north of 1.5 million to CSU for taking the UF job—out of his pocket.

Is the fact we're talking about several million make the 1.7 or so a non-factor?

Bottom line is Coaches have a much more control in their career than a student-athlete, despite the Student-athlete's being responsible for the coaches ability to make more money. In other words, if the player has a good sophomore year, he gets nothing in return. The Coach on the other hand gets a raise and new job offer. That's the reality

The coach should have more control. Comparing the two situations isn't apples and oranges, it's even more diverse.

The notion the student athlete being responsible for the coaches ability to make more money makes no sense to me. Put a bad coach with that kid and what happens.

A kid has a good sophomore year and gets nothing in return? See how that flies with people up to their neck in student debt. Tell that to the guy who actually IS hungry on a Friday night. Tell that to the people who spent their own savings to attend school. OR, tell that to the kid himself when that good sophomore year now has NFL scouts paying attention to his playing career.

It's the system that is ridiculous.

There's a lot about the way college sports is organized that makes little, or no, sense. My entire point here is an attempt to point out there's a number of facets involved and simply changing what seems like a small thing has repercussions throughout an entire athletic department. It's far from a zero sum game.

 

[ElephantStomp]

That keeps being said, but it's simply not the case anymore.

In this thread we've seen "coaches can move to any school." They can't, as evidenced by the recent deal with Bielema. We've see (on this forum, more than once in the last month) that coaches leave without penalty. Ask Coach Mac if he thinks paying 1.7 million (IIRC) out of his own pocket isn't a penalty. Or, perhaps offer some sage advice to Chavis and his court issues right now with LSU.

This isn't directed at you, Stomp, but I"m going to tack it on here for 'thoughts.'

People complain when a kid changes his commitment to another school. "They don't value the word commit" is a popular phrase heard when a kid changes his mind. But, when the kid has attended classes, has not only signed but been involved in every aspect of a scholarshipped athlete, and then decides to move on it's "let him out of his verbal, and written, commitments."

Ya know, this story starts with Turman, the RB who recently left UGA after being there two years. Two years, including a surgery paid for by UGA, at an average of roughly 49K per individual in football yet people are upset about UGA exercising some leverage? After UGA has more than 100K invested in this kid?

The more I think about all of this, the more I'm lead to believe the argument lacks a solid foundation. I see a lot that seemingly think along the lines of "that sounds good" but they don't seem to take into account every aspect. Ideology vs practicality?

I see your point. But, thinking 1.7 mil out of pocket for a coach that is being paid what 3 mil a year? Plus the money he got paid by CSU and Bama plus I am willing to bet UF is helping pay that 1.7. But, he did get to choose which school he wanted to go to.

Now, I say all that, but do have the opinion that coaches should have more rights that the athlete. I mean as long as the kid does what he's suppose to do and doesn't get into trouble he won't be booted, but no matter how good of a person a coach is if they don't win enough they're fired.

I just don't like the a kid can transfer, but only to a school of our choosing.

 

[ElephantStomp]

Agreed... As I mentioned earlier in the post... Only in college football can this type of sh*t hold up. It's painfully outdated, yet a big part of why the adults are cashing in so comfortably.

The NCAA in totality is outdated. Just think a college athlete that rodeos for any given school can compete professionally and get money from sponsorships while still in school, but if any other sport athlete so much as talks to an agent that school is punished and the athlete is declared ineligible.

The first school I attended on a rodeo scholly and I was able to make a good living with endorsements and professional rodeos

 

[TerryP]

I see your point. But, thinking 1.7 mil out of pocket for a coach that is being paid what 3 mil a year? Plus the money he got paid by CSU and Bama plus I am willing to bet UF is helping pay that 1.7. But, he did get to choose which school he wanted to go to.

UF didn't help with the 1.7; that's all on him. As I recall, the buyout was around 7 million which was negotiated down. Florida paid CSU a lump sum and agreed to hosting them for one of their OOC games. Part of the UF agreement with Mac stated he was responsible for the 1.7 portion of the negotiated buyout.

This reminds me of the Anthony Grant saga in that I wasn't in favor of just booting him arbitrarily with the buyout he had on the table. Even with the cash influx we had in football, I didn't want to see the University pulling an Auburn and ending up in the red along with paying him his monies due.

Then, in June, we find out the basketball program was in the black to the tune of almost 10 million. At that point I was more than comfortable seeing UA let him go.

At that point, we had the full picture.

Right now, we don't havea semblance of the full picture on what would happen—across the board in college athletics—if transfers were allowed to anyone, to go anywhere, at any time. Alabama would, and should, benefit due to what's been built. However, there are a lot of schools that would cry foul; and they should.

New Mexico State had a top 10 running back this past season. How do you think the NCAA D1 coaching staffs and administrations will react if he were allowed to play at Oregon next year? He'd be playing at Oregon with Freeman who was also a top 10 running back in 2015. Hell, Stanford returns McAffrey, don't they? If so, I'd think they'd be a bit upset with Oregon being able to poach a kid like that. It would have a bearing on the rest of the conference not to mention the title race. They'd be stockpiling even more talent than they have now, unencumbered.

Again, I'm looking at the consequences. It's something I don't see people taking into account.

One thing I think we can all agree on is this: If a kid wants to transfer, takes the route as it is today and plays in JUCO a year, and then returns to D1 play it doesn't 'harm him' in any fashion. He may not get what he wants immediately, but instant gratification isn't always a good thing, ya know? But, in the end, if he's good enough, that one year in JUCO doesn't kill his chances at the league or his academic future.

 

[94 Grad]

Not a fan of the change of transfer rules.

Big money coaches can leave without penalty, but God forbid a kid want to go to another school. A school shouldn't have the right to determine where a kid attends school

Unless things have changed since I was under scholly, it's not the NCAA that is allowing a school to dictate where a kid can go. It's the NLI they sign on signing day. The NLI is only binding for one year if you satisfy the terms of the NLI (attending the school for one year). After that, the school cannot dictate where you go... but you'll still have to sit out a year per NCAA transfer rules. You are not required to sign an NLI to get a scholly... I'd recommend any kid good enough to request scholarship papers only and no NLI. If I were to go back through it I'd try my best to not sign that NLI.

 

[94 Grad]

We're dealing with a 25 limit/cap. There is no "over-signing" anymore ... as the term goes. Look at the last class for the Tide; seven EE's, 17 reporting in the summer or fall for a total of 24. The class of 2015 was at 24 as well.

That's an SEC rule and it allows for back counting still. As long as the kid is an EE and you have space from the prior class, you can back count. So by your numbers above, if all 24 NLI signers were counted to the 2015 class, we could sign 26 next year if we wanted to and back count one EE to the 2015 count. Our issue isn't the 25 class cap, it's the 85 team cap...

The only caveat would be that you still have to count a non-qualifier or non enrollee if they had signed an NLI... so if you had 10 kids who had signed an NLI that decided to jump ship due to coaching changes, you'd not be able to back count those spaces per SEC rule. However, not many coaching changes are made after signing day...

Anyway, The point is, to my knowledge, the school isn't allowed to dictate where you go after you've attending the school for one year. It's only the recruited players that have signed an NLI and who have not yet completed a full year that they can do that to... and the kid can still go where-ever the hell he wants, but would have to sit out one year in residence before he'd be allowed to sign scholarship papers with another school. The NLI program is voluntary and not required for recruited players to sign... so in essence, I don't have any issues with it; however, I'd be very caustious signing it if I was a good enough players.

 

[MacLittle13]

Ridiculous? I don't know.

Odd timing considering it's a brand new system and there's nothing to be lost IF he/anyone chose Miami? Most certainly.

Within the last year one of the Quarterbacks out of A&M transferred and there was a little blurb—just here and there, mind you—about Sumlin restricting schools with his transfer. I can't recall which QB it was :eyeroll: but the schools listed were all the schools on A&M's schedule. If I'm not mistaken the same thing happened at USC recently; Town's transfer, maybe?

Consider: Let's say Cooper wanted to transfer and he wanted to go to LSU. Would you want him to transfer there considering his extensive knowledge of our playbook? I wouldn't. And, I wouldn't mind AT ALL if the staff chose to restrict his movement.

It's fairly common for coaches to use the old, "you can transfer anywhere you want out of the conference". Miami is not in the conference. Does Georgia even play Miami? That mentality doesn't bother me as much. I could even live with the decision if Richt had left and spurned Georgia for Miami...But to fire (or force out in this case) a coach who later finds a job at a school outside the conference, that you aren't going to play...it's just unnecessary. Georgia and Kirby in this case are coming out looking like bitches.

Would I WANT a star player transferring to another team in the conference, or worse in the West...hell no. But if Saban up and retires tomorrow, what does it matter if he takes the playbook, there's going to be an entire new coaching staff. The playbook wouldn't be that big of a deal unless Kiffin took over as head coach, in which case, a star receiver would be a moron to leave because Kiffin would get him 150 or so targets (as long as we are talking Amari Cooper like talent).