OT: D1

[IUP24]

I agree and think this is an overreaction to a pretty small problem. Two short windows with a restriction on transferring in consecutive windows and no appeals to avoid complaints of NCAA favoritism/inconsistency might be the best answer. It allows players who come out of spring ball looking at another season of little to no playing time a chance to transfer down to a level more appropriate to their talent instead of burning another year not playing but prevents guys from being excessively mercenary by moving up a level or perceived tier, showing out in spring ball, and trying to transfer to a better spot come fall. Alternatively you could allow transfers in consecutive windows but only transfers down or up a classification like the old days.

I do wish we could get back to a situation where there is some restriction on upward or lateral transfers. D2 athletics thrived because players who were not cutting it at the upper level transferred down without penalty. Now you are seeing players transferring laterally between Stony Brook and Mount St. Mary's. Athletically, those players are likely seeing no benefits (because they probably were more cut out for D2 regardless). And not cutting it at a 2nd school, increases the likelihood of a 3rd transfer, which ultimately impacts them very negatively from an academic perspective.

You can even say that from an FBS football conversation. There are plenty of players playing FBS football who struggle to get a helmet at that level, but would make very good, high-quality D2 players. The problem is that the guy not playing at Akron or Kent State now just transfers to Marshall or Umass.

I know it's not as simple as I'm making it sound, but those guys should be encouraged (rightfully so or not) by transfer rules to be dropping down to FCS or D2. Selfishly, that helps smaller schools and smaller levels. But I do believe the faster you find the right landing spot for many of these players athletically, it's more likely that they will stay and graduate from that school.

[TheBigCat2192]

A lot of the younger readers on here may not even realize how hard it used to be to transfer.

If Johnny Brookville wanted to transfer out of Clarion in 1997, the school could literally block him from going to certain places. Further, PSAC West to PSAC West transfers, for example, had to sit a year. Such moves were very rare back then.

D1 to D1 had to sit a year, which is why so many would come down to D2 (play immediately and not sit).

Of course, back then players cared about getting on with life, too, and didn't want to be playing D2 sports on their 29th birthday. We have football players this in their 7th year of PSAC football. Think about that.

The types of mega transfers schools like IUP could land back in the 90s will never sniff D2 other than a rare unicorn here and there.

I am old enough to remember the “sit out one year” rule (a notable example would be Justin Boren, a very good collegiate lineman, transferring from Michigan to OSU and sitting out a season.) I will say that I don’t remember too many cases of a guy dropping down to transfer back up in my time. I think that had mostly fallen out of practice for accomplished players and the preference was to ride the pine for a year and ingratiate yourself into the team/system. The one year dip was usually more of a last resort for former big-time recruits on the verge of flaming out entirely or behavioral transfers.

[TheBigCat2192]

I do wish we could get back to a situation where there is some restriction on upward or lateral transfers. D2 athletics thrived because players who were not cutting it at the upper level transferred down without penalty. Now you are seeing players transferring laterally between Stony Brook and Mount St. Mary's. Athletically, those players are likely seeing no benefits (because they probably were more cut out for D2 regardless). And not cutting it at a 2nd school, increases the likelihood of a 3rd transfer, which ultimately impacts them very negatively from an academic perspective.

You can even say that from an FBS football conversation. There are plenty of players playing FBS football who struggle to get a helmet at that level, but would make very good, high-quality D2 players. The problem is that the guy not playing at Akron or Kent State now just transfers to Marshall or Umass.

I know it's not as simple as I'm making it sound, but those guys should be encouraged (rightfully so or not) by transfer rules to be dropping down to FCS or D2. Selfishly, that helps smaller schools and smaller levels. But I do believe the faster you find the right landing spot for many of these players athletically, it's more likely that they will stay and graduate from that school.

The problem with blocking lateral transfers is that there definitely are players at a given level who could perform at that level but have ended up with a team that doesn’t mesh with their strengths. If Joe DB excels in man coverage, got recruited by a man coverage DBs coach, then came to school to find the recruiter got poached to be the DC elsewhere and the new coach is a zone guy he may not see the field or perform well when he does. Should the NCAA be able to mandate Joe DB transfer down instead of going to another school in the same classification that runs a man scheme? How does the NCAA differentiate between players who legitimately aren’t cut out for a given level of college football vs. someone who’s a bad schematic fit or bad cultural fit but sufficiently talented?

[IUP24]

The problem with blocking lateral transfers is that there definitely are players at a given level who could perform at that level but have ended up with a team that doesn’t mesh with their strengths. If Joe DB excels in man coverage, got recruited by a man coverage DBs coach, then came to school to find the recruiter got poached to be the DC elsewhere and the new coach is a zone guy he may not see the field or perform well when he does. Should the NCAA be able to mandate Joe DB transfer down instead of going to another school in the same classification that runs a man scheme? How does the NCAA differentiate between players who legitimately aren’t cut out for a given level of college football vs. someone who’s a bad schematic fit or bad cultural fit but sufficiently talented?

Oh I agree completely. I'm just mainly giving food for thought. There's no way to manage it. I do agree with the above post that players used to want to move on from college athletics, and now they seem to not want to (for a variety of reasons). Players just continue to find ways to remain college students indefinitely. What's interesting to me is that the players who stick with one school are not the ones who seem to be getting the extra years. Now that the COVID year is over, you are seeing players in and out in four years. It's the ones that are not graduating and going to multiple schools that are getting indefinite eligibility it seems - which is contrary to the mission of the NCAA. Because the players who aren't getting on with their life are limiting opportunities for others who could be getting an education while playing a collegiate sport.

I get why guys transfer (some reasons are valid and totally justifiable). I struggle with the players fitting into the category of having multiple transfers, never graduating, and never really making any tangible impact in their sport. That number continues to grow and grow.

People who are extremely pro-player in this entire conversation love to talk about the freedom that you and I have in the job market, etc. But they fail to ever discuss how this added freedom in transfers, added eligibility, etc., has undeniably destroyed lower level collegiate athletics to a degree.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Does Dabo survive the night?

Holy smokes.

[jrshooter]

Beau Pribula looks awfully comfortable running that Mizzou offense.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Ferris State QB transfer now 2-0 at Ole Miss.

[Fightingscot82]

Curt embarrassed Illinois last night. Wow

[TheBigCat2192]

Oh I agree completely. I'm just mainly giving food for thought. There's no way to manage it. I do agree with the above post that players used to want to move on from college athletics, and now they seem to not want to (for a variety of reasons). Players just continue to find ways to remain college students indefinitely. What's interesting to me is that the players who stick with one school are not the ones who seem to be getting the extra years. Now that the COVID year is over, you are seeing players in and out in four years. It's the ones that are not graduating and going to multiple schools that are getting indefinite eligibility it seems - which is contrary to the mission of the NCAA. Because the players who aren't getting on with their life are limiting opportunities for others who could be getting an education while playing a collegiate sport.

I get why guys transfer (some reasons are valid and totally justifiable). I struggle with the players fitting into the category of having multiple transfers, never graduating, and never really making any tangible impact in their sport. That number continues to grow and grow.

People who are extremely pro-player in this entire conversation love to talk about the freedom that you and I have in the job market, etc. But they fail to ever discuss how this added freedom in transfers, added eligibility, etc., has undeniably destroyed lower level collegiate athletics to a degree.

Lower level collegiate athletics have been in a 30-40 year freefall since Board of Regents v. NCAA and the rise of cable TV, respectively, freed students to watch their favorite big teams instead of leaving them as captive audiences to their own school. Player movement and NIL have hurt too but I don’t think we should pretend D2 (and frankly D3) football wasn’t a shell of itself even 10-15 years ago.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Lower level collegiate athletics have been in a 30-40 year freefall since Board of Regents v. NCAA and the rise of cable TV, respectively, freed students to watch their favorite big teams instead of leaving them as captive audiences to their own school. Player movement and NIL have hurt too but I don’t think we should pretend D2 (and frankly D3) football wasn’t a shell of itself even 10-15 years ago.

The best PSAC team 10 years ago would hammer the best PSAC team today.

The best PSAC team 25-30 years ago ... total slaughter.

Different times. The league could get much better transfers then. Our stars didn't leave early to move up. We still have a good product, but it's nowhere near what it was.

IUP used to have a Yellow Brick Road from the Big East to Indiana. Now said road runs through Millersville and Greensburg. That's a real big difference.

Frank's two best teams in the 90s would have literally decimated Tort's two best modern teams.

Imagine those powerful Bloom teams playing the 2025 edition? Ugly.

The Cal teams from the Angelo era? They'd beat this Cal team by 35 (at least).

[TheBigCat2192]

The best PSAC team 10 years ago would hammer the best PSAC team today.

The best PSAC team 25-30 years ago ... total slaughter.

Different times. The league could get much better transfers then. Our stars didn't leave early to move up. We still have a good product, but it's nowhere near what it was.

IUP used to have a Yellow Brick Road from the Big East to Indiana. Now said road runs through Millersville and Greensburg. That's a real big difference.

Frank's two best teams in the 90s would have literally decimated Tort's two best modern teams.

Imagine those powerful Bloom teams playing the 2025 edition? Ugly.

The Cal teams from the Angelo era? They'd beat this Cal team by 35 (at least).

I don’t know if those teams would be better given the advances in S&C and our better understanding of going for it in short yardage. The crowds and local media coverage are definitely not going to come back any time soon though and that was more what I was thinking of.

[Fightingscot82]

Who gets canned first:

Fickell
Gundy
Swinney

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Who gets canned first:

Fickell
Gundy
Swinney

That's a good question.

Dabo probably at least has a chance to salvage the season. And, by 'salvage' that could mean winning more games than they lose. But, I think his old school approach down there is getting real old to the faithful.

Gundy is a lost cause. I'm not sure he can turn this around. That's not an easy job there, either. His last two weeks they lost by about 400 to Oregon and then just lost to Tulsa (for the first time in 70-some years). This seems like the classic 'stayed too long' coaching story. He will be fantastic on television.

Many thought Fickell leaving Cincy for Wisconsin would end up like this. He was a really hot commodity at the time. Should he have been more selective / waited for a better job? Hard to say. Needless to say he's not real popular in Madison right now.


If I had to pick one to actually get fired in-season, it would be Fickell. The other two will be afforded the dignity of finishing the season and 'resigning'. They've both earned that at those schools.

[IUP24]

The best PSAC team 10 years ago would hammer the best PSAC team today.

The best PSAC team 25-30 years ago ... total slaughter.

Different times. The league could get much better transfers then. Our stars didn't leave early to move up. We still have a good product, but it's nowhere near what it was.

IUP used to have a Yellow Brick Road from the Big East to Indiana. Now said road runs through Millersville and Greensburg. That's a real big difference.

Frank's two best teams in the 90s would have literally decimated Tort's two best modern teams.

Imagine those powerful Bloom teams playing the 2025 edition? Ugly.

The Cal teams from the Angelo era? They'd beat this Cal team by 35 (at least).

Admittedly, I just don't agree that it's even a good product now. That's not to discredit those playing at this level or those that are extremely, extremely invested in watching it. I think PSAC football is mostly awful anymore. It's why my interest has completely waned over the last few years.

I first got into D2 football when my sister was in the marching band at Cal during their 3-consecutive trips to the National Semifinals. I was in high school at the time. This isn't even the same football as what I watched then. I think for so many, people see D2 football (especially within the PSAC) as just an extension of high school football (and there's a variety of reasons for that as you called out). I just think the speed of the game has gotten so slow. The quality of players has regressed pretty significantly. It's moved in the wrong direction pretty significantly over the last 15 years.

I just don't see it as an enjoyable watch anymore. It's not what it was when I first got into it. And when I sit down to watch IUP-Millersville, like I did this weekend, I reach a point in the game where I ask myself, "what am I even watching this for?"

Again, not to discredit those playing. It's just evolved too much for me in a negative way (perhaps that has to do with regular transfers out and no quality coming back in) that I cannot invest the way I did before.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

I don’t know if those teams would be better given the advances in S&C and our better understanding of going for it in short yardage. The crowds and local media coverage are definitely not going to come back any time soon though and that was more what I was thinking of.

Those teams would slaughter the teams in the league today. The overall talent level was just, well, on a different level.

Regarding S&C, I'd argue the players in the PSAC were actually in better football shape back then. Teams in that era also more frequently hit in practice (and practiced more). We see so many missed tackles weekly now and ticky-tack injuries because they don't hit -- hardly at all -- during the season aside from Saturday afternoon. Practice time is on a pretty strict pitch count these days ... a lot less hours on the field.