The Bobcat Nation

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... keyes-2019

Let the kids transfer wherever they want. They capped the number of kids that could be on scholarship to 85 because teams like Alabama would recruit well over a 100 kids, put them on scholarship not to have them contribute but to keep them from the other teams.

Catsrgrood wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:05 pm

Added Duru.
2 WR’s out of the same class now, that stings.

I don't think so. All it will take is a year of actually passing to our receivers and we will pick up some 3 star freshmen. Right now a TE would be good.

Montanabob wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:59 am

Catsrgrood wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:05 pm

Added Duru.
2 WR’s out of the same class now, that stings.

I don't think so. All it will take is a year of actually passing to our receivers and we will pick up some 3 star freshmen. Right now a TE would be good.

We already added two 3-star freshman in the most recent recruiting class.

Montanabob wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:59 am

Catsrgrood wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:05 pm

Added Duru.
2 WR’s out of the same class now, that stings.

I don't think so. All it will take is a year of actually passing to our receivers and we will pick up some 3 star freshmen. Right now a TE would be good.

I meant for depth and development. I believe there were about 3 WR’s recruited last year and 2 are gone now. Neither likely would have had an impact this year, but for the development of the position, that’s never great to lose a couple out of the same class.
The Cats picked up 2 more 3* WR’s in this years class, all will be fine.

Cat Grad wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:43 pm

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... keyes-2019

Let the kids transfer wherever they want. They capped the number of kids that could be on scholarship to 85 because teams like Alabama would recruit well over a 100 kids, put them on scholarship not to have them contribute but to keep them from the other teams.

As long as a coach (or AD) can yank a scholarship, or even cut a kid, it doesn't make much sense to restrict transferring.

onceacat wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:59 pm

Cat Grad wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:43 pm

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... keyes-2019

Let the kids transfer wherever they want. They capped the number of kids that could be on scholarship to 85 because teams like Alabama would recruit well over a 100 kids, put them on scholarship not to have them contribute but to keep them from the other teams.

As long as a coach (or AD) can yank a scholarship, or even cut a kid, it doesn't make much sense to restrict transferring.

Disagree. These schools are investing in these kids and just allowing them to walk without penalty seems like a bad message to me. When a pro makes a commitment he can’t just walk without talking the team into releasing or trading him.

utucats wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:26 pm

onceacat wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:59 pm

Cat Grad wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:43 pm

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... keyes-2019

Let the kids transfer wherever they want. They capped the number of kids that could be on scholarship to 85 because teams like Alabama would recruit well over a 100 kids, put them on scholarship not to have them contribute but to keep them from the other teams.

As long as a coach (or AD) can yank a scholarship, or even cut a kid, it doesn't make much sense to restrict transferring.

Disagree. These schools are investing in these kids and just allowing them to walk without penalty seems like a bad message to me. When a pro makes a commitment he can’t just walk without talking the team into releasing or trading him.

Not even a good comparison

utucats wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:26 pm

onceacat wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:59 pm

Cat Grad wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:43 pm

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... keyes-2019

Let the kids transfer wherever they want. They capped the number of kids that could be on scholarship to 85 because teams like Alabama would recruit well over a 100 kids, put them on scholarship not to have them contribute but to keep them from the other teams.

As long as a coach (or AD) can yank a scholarship, or even cut a kid, it doesn't make much sense to restrict transferring.

Disagree. These schools are investing in these kids and just allowing them to walk without penalty seems like a bad message to me. When a pro makes a commitment he can’t just walk without talking the team into releasing or trading him.

Well which is more important, his commitment to his collegiate team, or his ability to attend a school of his choice? For many kids, this is how they get schooling paid for. By telling a kid he can't go play football somewhere else, you are impacting the rest of his life because now his educational options are much more limited.

Everybody is on one year contracts. You can't force coaches or players to stay if they don't want to be here or get a better opportunity. Don't forget that after spring ball there will be kids that want to stay, but will be asked to accept lower scholarship money or flat out cut.

Is Jabarri Johnson coming back? Apologize in advance if this has been posted. If so I missed it.

CelticCat wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:34 pm

utucats wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:26 pm

onceacat wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:59 pm

Cat Grad wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:43 pm

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... keyes-2019

Let the kids transfer wherever they want. They capped the number of kids that could be on scholarship to 85 because teams like Alabama would recruit well over a 100 kids, put them on scholarship not to have them contribute but to keep them from the other teams.

As long as a coach (or AD) can yank a scholarship, or even cut a kid, it doesn't make much sense to restrict transferring.

Disagree. These schools are investing in these kids and just allowing them to walk without penalty seems like a bad message to me. When a pro makes a commitment he can’t just walk without talking the team into releasing or trading him.

Well which is more important, his commitment to his collegiate team, or his ability to attend a school of his choice? For many kids, this is how they get schooling paid for. By telling a kid he can't go play football somewhere else, you are impacting the rest of his life because now his educational options are much more limited.

The kid did get to attend the school of their choice, the first time they picked it!

I do agree that kids should be able to transfer if they need to, but there also needs to be some kind of limitation on it or it's going to turn into a total free-for-all where coaches have no idea who they've got or what positions they need, until very deep into the recruiting year.

Montanabob wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:35 pm

utucats wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:26 pm

onceacat wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:59 pm

Cat Grad wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:43 pm

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... keyes-2019

Let the kids transfer wherever they want. They capped the number of kids that could be on scholarship to 85 because teams like Alabama would recruit well over a 100 kids, put them on scholarship not to have them contribute but to keep them from the other teams.

As long as a coach (or AD) can yank a scholarship, or even cut a kid, it doesn't make much sense to restrict transferring.

Disagree. These schools are investing in these kids and just allowing them to walk without penalty seems like a bad message to me. When a pro makes a commitment he can’t just walk without talking the team into releasing or trading him.

Not even a good comparison

Ok, how about this one.....if a kid enlists in the military should they be able to just change their mind a year in. I mean, the military can discharge them if they choose so shouldn’t the kid be able to just walk away?

Seems like a decent comparison to me. They idea floated was that since a coach can yank a scholarship a kid should be able to walk whenever. Same could apply to a host of adult situations but life doesn’t work that way.

I think these kids should learn that decisions have consequences. Should they be able to transfer? Sure, but they should have some sort of penalty to make them seriously consider if it is worth it.

Your two comparisons are to the military, and a profession where you get paid.

Let me flip it. I work where I work. I want a new job. I have to go ask my boss if I can leave?

CelticCat wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:34 pm

utucats wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:26 pm

onceacat wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:59 pm

Cat Grad wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:43 pm

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... keyes-2019

Let the kids transfer wherever they want. They capped the number of kids that could be on scholarship to 85 because teams like Alabama would recruit well over a 100 kids, put them on scholarship not to have them contribute but to keep them from the other teams.

As long as a coach (or AD) can yank a scholarship, or even cut a kid, it doesn't make much sense to restrict transferring.

Disagree. These schools are investing in these kids and just allowing them to walk without penalty seems like a bad message to me. When a pro makes a commitment he can’t just walk without talking the team into releasing or trading him.

Well which is more important, his commitment to his collegiate team, or his ability to attend a school of his choice? For many kids, this is how they get schooling paid for. By telling a kid he can't go play football somewhere else, you are impacting the rest of his life because now his educational options are much more limited.

A kid can go somewhere else but it shouldn’t be so easy. If you are willing to sit out for a year or payback some scholarship money then you can leave. This way kids who really are in a bad situation can leave but if you are just being a grass is greener kid you will think twice.

I don’t like creating a system that rewards quitting.

CelticCat wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:04 pm

Your two comparisons are to the military, and a profession where you get paid.

Let me flip it. I work where I work. I want a new job. I have to go ask my boss if I can leave?

Having all or part of your school paid for is compensation. The millions of people struggling to pay of college debt should understand this.

Many employers offer moving packages or sign on bonuses with a policy that you are expected to stay for a certain amount of time or you have to payback a portion of that money.

utucats wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:09 pm

Many employers offer moving packages or sign on bonuses with a policy that you are expected to stay for a certain amount of time or you have to payback a portion of that money.

College football players receive neither of those. The idea that kids should have to pay back a scholarship for a year they played, when schools only commit to them for a year at a time, is beyond ludicrous.

utucats wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:07 pm

I don’t like creating a system that rewards quitting.

They didn't. They created a system that allows quitting. Which is only fair, since a coach can quit on a player (either by leaving the school or cutting the player) any time he wants.

utucats wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:09 pm

CelticCat wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:04 pm

Your two comparisons are to the military, and a profession where you get paid.

Let me flip it. I work where I work. I want a new job. I have to go ask my boss if I can leave?

Having all or part of your school paid for is compensation. The millions of people struggling to pay of college debt should understand this.

Many employers offer moving packages or sign on bonuses with a policy that you are expected to stay for a certain amount of time or you have to payback a portion of that money.

It is, but they are asking to be released from that commitment which would include the school's responsibility to pay them. If a guy quits, or transfers, he doesn't get that scholarship anymore. Just like if I quit my job, I don't get my salary anymore.

Well I know Choate is not happy at all with this rule, and while he is insanely competitive and really really wants to win, I also sincerely believe he puts the players first and does not believe this is good for them. That's it.

catatac wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:00 pm

Well I know Choate is not happy at all with this rule, and while he is insanely competitive and really really wants to win, I also sincerely believe he puts the players first and does not believe this is good for them. That's it.

+1

91catAlum wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:02 pm

CelticCat wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:34 pm

utucats wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:26 pm

onceacat wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:59 pm

Cat Grad wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:43 pm

http://www.espn.com/college-football/st ... keyes-2019

Let the kids transfer wherever they want. They capped the number of kids that could be on scholarship to 85 because teams like Alabama would recruit well over a 100 kids, put them on scholarship not to have them contribute but to keep them from the other teams.

As long as a coach (or AD) can yank a scholarship, or even cut a kid, it doesn't make much sense to restrict transferring.

Disagree. These schools are investing in these kids and just allowing them to walk without penalty seems like a bad message to me. When a pro makes a commitment he can’t just walk without talking the team into releasing or trading him.

Well which is more important, his commitment to his collegiate team, or his ability to attend a school of his choice? For many kids, this is how they get schooling paid for. By telling a kid he can't go play football somewhere else, you are impacting the rest of his life because now his educational options are much more limited.

The kid did get to attend the school of their choice, the first time they picked it!

I do agree that kids should be able to transfer if they need to, but there also needs to be some kind of limitation on it or it's going to turn into a total free-for-all where coaches have no idea who they've got or what positions they need, until very deep into the recruiting year.

How about a limit on the time the portal is open? I’m sure there are problems with this, but limit the time a player can enter his name into the portal to just the Fall semester. Change the scholarships to six month timeframes. If a person enters their name in the portal during the Fall semester, their scholarship ends at the end of that semester. No more having a player that wants to explore his options at other schools taking scholarship money during the Spring semester. If that player doesn’t get other offers and decides to return, then the scholarship money may be reinstated. That makes a consequence for their actions and still gives them freedom to leave. Just brainstorming. This isn’t a perfect idea.