New rule for drop down transfers

KillintheGriz · Post by **KillintheGriz** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:42 am

As of next year, all 1-A drop downs have to have at least two years of eligibility left. No more senior drop downs. This new rule is going to flood 1-AA football with drop downs next year and probably for many years after. If a player is on the fence at the end of their 2nd year, they will most likely drop down for their 3rd year. They won't want to risk sitting the bench their 3rd and 4th year. Unless the Bobcats focus on long term growth and committment in their kids, the coming rash of drop down transfers is going to change the bobcat football program (and all of 1-AA for that matter), recruiting, and development of players just out of high school.

Since Kramer likes drop down wide receivers, the young receivers we have in the program probably don't have a chance. They might want to look at switching to the defense.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:51 am

I disagree with every premise of this thread. The new rule will have the opposite effect, it will actually reduce the number of drop-downs available. And while it is certainly true that Kramer does like drop-down receivers, I completely disagree that our young receivers should look at moving to defense. They should continue to work hard so they can earn their spot on the field.

canyoncat · Post by **canyoncat** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:55 am

I was wondering the same thing. I actually like this new rule. It would be great to get a kid like Jefferson and Wheaton for a good two years. However, you are right what would that say to the younger receivers (Toliver, Lewis, Lulay, Green and Banks)?

Going into next year our biggest needs may be at Saftey. Other than that, I really like what we have coming back!

JahGriz · Post by **JahGriz** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:59 am

Besides, it isn't really the player's call whether they switch to D or not.

Also, I don't think the rule will affect the number of dropdowns in any significant way. A few players might think of transfering earlier, and that number might off set the number of seniors that would drop down.

Good rule either way, IMO.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:25 am

It is definitely a smart rule. If nothing else, for the academic part of the equation. A student athlete will have a much better chance of getting a degree if they don't transfer to Institution B after completing 60% or 75% of their degree at Institution A.

I think the number of I-A transfers in the NCAA will stay about the same. The number of transfers with 2 years of eligibility might go up, while the number with less will go to zero.

This could have a potentially significant impact on NAIA FB programs. Since NAIA isn't subject to NCAA rules, those players with 1-year of eligibility might end up transfering to an NAIA school. I don't what the NAIA rules are regarding transfers out of an NCAA school...could be interesting.

PDXKat · Post by **PDXKat** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:39 am

I like the new rule too, it will definitely reduce the one year wonders. I do like to see our kids, who have worked and sweated with each other for 2-3 years get opportunities rather than always having to deal with the older more experinced transfers. With two years left theres still a chance for most guys to get on the field. With the transfer rules in place now, there could have been 2 year transfers happening if a kid with 2 years left felt he was buried, but I can't recall that it has happened much. Our transfer receivers the last couple of years have been seniors - Javon, Tramaine, Donnell, and Jefferson.

torrybruce · Post by **torrybruce** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:46 pm

I really do like this rule. I think this will not really impact the amount of drop downs. I do think it will give programs some continuity who happen to score a strong drop down. Imagine getting Jevon, Tremaine, Donnell or Michael when they were Juniors and have 2 years with them in your program. That is where the true impact will be felt. I think coaches now will really have to put some focus into talk with 1-A athletes earlier and planting that seed.

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:12 pm

I think it's a great rule and I fully support it. It will require some adjustment from any I-AA program that has relied on a few I-A dropdowns as a quick fix, but it will also require that I-A players decide earlier what the best direction for their football career is most beneficial for them. One year drop downs will still be possible, but they'd have to sit out a year, which is doubtful because if they have to sit out they might as well try to find a I-A school where they might get playing time.

tetoncat · Post by **tetoncat** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:28 pm

What do you think this will do to JC transfers. They have to go somewhere or give up football. Does this provide more competition to them as both groups will have 2 years of eligibility.

I think it is good. I still believe we are paying coaches to put winning programs on the field and they will always look for the best available athletes. If our redshirts and returners are strong enough to win, they will not look to fill a spot in that position. If they are not, the coaches will fill however they can, transfer, JC, or high school. And that is what I expect of them to ensure a winning program.