McClain gone

[MattK]

QB transfers are definitely on the uptick. Between playing time, coaching changes, school, and other reasons, transferring is evolving into its own little recruiting niche. Can’t blame the kids in most instances and with coaching changes, transferring should be available without any limitations.

It seems that the majority of this is that 300 kids think they should have 130 starting QB spots. and most of those 300 think they're going to the NFL. So, once they're not the starter at the school they originally chose, they try to find another school where they will be the starter. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of planning for the future when you're not one of the 12 or so guys drafted by the NFL.

Hard to unilaterally blame the kids, especially without knowing what they're told when being recruited.

don't you WANT a kid who thinks he should start and thinks he's going to the NFL? I'd shy away from any kid that thinks "well, I'm just shooting to be a back up for a college team.. you know, few snaps in garbage time, wave in the signals and then go to grad school".. sure, for most that's a reality... but you shouldn't be setting your bar that low.

Agreed

Of course. Would you also not want a kid that thinks "I'm good enough that I'm going to beat these other guys out" over "well, ok, I'm out of here. I'll go find someone else to promise me a starting job"?

And it's certainly not unilateral because I'm sure a lot of them are asked to leave to free up a scholarship. (And if they do then they are punished and forced to sit out a year.)

I don't have a solution for it.

[ml wave]

QB transfers are definitely on the uptick. Between playing time, coaching changes, school, and other reasons, transferring is evolving into its own little recruiting niche. Can’t blame the kids in most instances and with coaching changes, transferring should be available without any limitations.

It seems that the majority of this is that 300 kids think they should have 130 starting QB spots. and most of those 300 think they're going to the NFL. So, once they're not the starter at the school they originally chose, they try to find another school where they will be the starter. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of planning for the future when you're not one of the 12 or so guys drafted by the NFL.

Hard to unilaterally blame the kids, especially without knowing what they're told when being recruited.

don't you WANT a kid who thinks he should start and thinks he's going to the NFL? I'd shy away from any kid that thinks "well, I'm just shooting to be a back up for a college team.. you know, few snaps in garbage time, wave in the signals and then go to grad school".. sure, for most that's a reality... but you shouldn't be setting your bar that low.

Agreed

Of course. Would you also not want a kid that thinks "I'm good enough that I'm going to beat these other guys out" over "well, ok, I'm out of here. I'll go find someone else to promise me a starting job"?

And it's certainly not unilateral because I'm sure a lot of them are asked to leave to free up a scholarship. (And if they do then they are punished and forced to sit out a year.)

I don't have a solution for it.

I don't think we have enough info to know it was competition related...was McClain asked to switch positions? Is there a personality conflict? Something told to him while being recruited that he doesn't feel came to fruition? Or could be something non-FB related?

Why not just let kids transfer? It's their life, why penalize them? Ok, that makes things slightly more complicated/inconvenient for the coaches getting paid millions...cry me a river.

[MattK]

To be clear, I know absolutely nothing about McClain’s situation and nothing I said was directed towards it/him.

[GSx]

Why not just let kids transfer? It's their life, why penalize them? Ok, that makes things slightly more complicated/inconvenient for the coaches getting paid millions...cry me a river.

Because coaches would then recruit productive players off of other schools' rosters. That is why.
A player who isn't playing much or asked to move a position or whatever can go FCS without sitting out.

[wavedom]

Why not just let kids transfer? It's their life, why penalize them? Ok, that makes things slightly more complicated/inconvenient for the coaches getting paid millions...cry me a river.

Because coaches would then recruit productive players off of other schools' rosters. That is why.
A player who isn't playing much or asked to move a position or whatever can go FCS without sitting out.

This

[ml wave]

Why not just let kids transfer? It's their life, why penalize them? Ok, that makes things slightly more complicated/inconvenient for the coaches getting paid millions...cry me a river.

Because coaches would then recruit productive players off of other schools' rosters. That is why.
A player who isn't playing much or asked to move a position or whatever can go FCS without sitting out.

This

So what?

[waverider]

Why not just let kids transfer? It's their life, why penalize them? Ok, that makes things slightly more complicated/inconvenient for the coaches getting paid millions...cry me a river.

Because coaches would then recruit productive players off of other schools' rosters. That is why.
A player who isn't playing much or asked to move a position or whatever can go FCS without sitting out.

This

Letting kids transfer at will would be disastrous. Transfers are abundant now, could you imagine if each year Nick Saban just replaced outgoing seniors with the top players on his rivals' rosters?

I think there should be some kind of case by case evaluation that would allow certain situations where a kid doesn't have to sit out. Tanner Lee's situation comes to mind. If the transfer is due to a change in scheme that no longer fits the player, that could be a special situation. Where the line has to be drawn is when kids transfer just to get playing time or cases similar to that.

Another thing that would have to be taken into consideration is the APR. If Tanner Lee, for example, left Nebraska before graduating, Tulane takes the hit as a non-graduating athlete.

[Saintgreenie]

When I first heard about the possible changes to transfer rules a few months ago, I just rolled my eyes. That would be beyond terrible (for all the reasons waverider said). I'm not even sure I would be ok with that on a case by case basis such as Tanner Lee's (As of now, those player can get an extra year of eligibility, so they're not missing out on much).

Didn't NCAA change transfer rules for baseball a few years back that hurt schools like Tulane (mid-level private institutions)? What a broke system college football is if they make this rule change (which ultimately favors the "big time" programs) in the wake of that baseball change. Hell, what am I talking about? It's broke already.

[ml wave]

Why not just let kids transfer? It's their life, why penalize them? Ok, that makes things slightly more complicated/inconvenient for the coaches getting paid millions...cry me a river.

Because coaches would then recruit productive players off of other schools' rosters. That is why.
A player who isn't playing much or asked to move a position or whatever can go FCS without sitting out.

This

Letting kids transfer at will would be disastrous. Transfers are abundant now, could you imagine if each year Nick Saban just replaced outgoing seniors with the top players on his rivals' rosters?

I think there should be some kind of case by case evaluation that would allow certain situations where a kid doesn't have to sit out. Tanner Lee's situation comes to mind. If the transfer is due to a change in scheme that no longer fits the player, that could be a special situation. Where the line has to be drawn is when kids transfer just to get playing time or cases similar to that.

Another thing that would have to be taken into consideration is the APR. If Tanner Lee, for example, left Nebraska before graduating, Tulane takes the hit as a non-graduating athlete.

Wow, if that happened Alabama might have more talent than everybody else...they might even be able to make the playoffs every year!

[ml wave]

When I first heard about the possible changes to transfer rules a few months ago, I just rolled my eyes. That would be beyond terrible (for all the reasons waverider said). I'm not even sure I would be ok with that on a case by case basis such as Tanner Lee's (As of now, those player can get an extra year of eligibility, so they're not missing out on much).

Didn't NCAA change transfer rules for baseball a few years back that hurt schools like Tulane (mid-level private institutions)? What a broke system college football is if they make this rule change (which ultimately favors the "big time" programs) in the wake of that baseball change. Hell, what am I talking about? It's broke already.

Interesting that you think the baseball rule (free transfers, no sitting out) helped Tulane but the same in football would not.

[wavedom]

Why not just let kids transfer? It's their life, why penalize them? Ok, that makes things slightly more complicated/inconvenient for the coaches getting paid millions...cry me a river.

Because coaches would then recruit productive players off of other schools' rosters. That is why.
A player who isn't playing much or asked to move a position or whatever can go FCS without sitting out.

This

So what?

In other sports leagues if you want a player form another team you have to give something up to get them. That wouldn't be the case here. So as GSX said players we get that others passed on b/c maybe they didn't have the measurables but prove themselves to be up to it would get plucked away. Maybe you want to see Tulane football end but I don't.

[ml wave]

Why not just let kids transfer? It's their life, why penalize them? Ok, that makes things slightly more complicated/inconvenient for the coaches getting paid millions...cry me a river.

Because coaches would then recruit productive players off of other schools' rosters. That is why.
A player who isn't playing much or asked to move a position or whatever can go FCS without sitting out.

This

So what?

In other sports leagues if you want a player form another team you have to give something up to get them. That wouldn't be the case here. So as GSX said players we get that others passed on b/c maybe they didn't have the measurables but prove themselves to be up to it would get plucked away. Maybe you want to see Tulane football end but I don't.

In other sports leagues players get paid so there's no real analogy there. This isn't a one way street you know...under this system we would be allowed to have players transfer to us as well. For instance, grads can transfer without sitting out a year...this year we lost a grad (Couillette), and gained one (the OL from Vandy who I'm too lazy to look up). Somehow Tulane football did not end...in fact, it's not that hard to argue we improved from that "trade".

[wavedom]

The analogy holds. Programs like Tulane would always come out on the losing end. Thus for all practical purposes you might as well end it.

[ml wave]

The analogy holds. Programs like Tulane would always come out on the losing end. Thus for all practical purposes you might as well end it.

Oh ok.

[RI WAVE]

Anyone have any info on why this occurred? McClain looked like a promising prospect. Was he unhappy at Tulane because of the Campus culture, style of football, classroom concerns...any info at all?

just curious and do not want any "dirt" just some rationale for the change of heart...

maybe he just wanted a change of scenery... it happens - folks sometimes just need to change schools to be happy for alot of reasons.

Thanks for any definitive info..

[GSx]

When I first heard about the possible changes to transfer rules a few months ago, I just rolled my eyes. That would be beyond terrible (for all the reasons waverider said). I'm not even sure I would be ok with that on a case by case basis such as Tanner Lee's (As of now, those player can get an extra year of eligibility, so they're not missing out on much).

Didn't NCAA change transfer rules for baseball a few years back that hurt schools like Tulane (mid-level private institutions)? What a broke system college football is if they make this rule change (which ultimately favors the "big time" programs) in the wake of that baseball change. Hell, what am I talking about? It's broke already.

Interesting that you think the baseball rule (free transfers, no sitting out) helped Tulane but the same in football would not.

Exactly - it was a positive in baseball because we were a top 20 program.
It will cripple everything else we are trying to do (and spare me the snark about how they aren't good anyway - tampering is a reason why our basketball program has lacked talent, despite improved recruiting for several years).

[ml wave]

When I first heard about the possible changes to transfer rules a few months ago, I just rolled my eyes. That would be beyond terrible (for all the reasons waverider said). I'm not even sure I would be ok with that on a case by case basis such as Tanner Lee's (As of now, those player can get an extra year of eligibility, so they're not missing out on much).

Didn't NCAA change transfer rules for baseball a few years back that hurt schools like Tulane (mid-level private institutions)? What a broke system college football is if they make this rule change (which ultimately favors the "big time" programs) in the wake of that baseball change. Hell, what am I talking about? It's broke already.

Interesting that you think the baseball rule (free transfers, no sitting out) helped Tulane but the same in football would not.

Exactly - it was a positive in baseball because we were a top 20 program.
It will cripple everything else we are trying to do (and spare me the snark about how they aren't good anyway - tampering is a reason why our basketball program has lacked talent, despite improved recruiting for several years).

Our most prominent transfers in baseball were from GT (Owings) and LSU (Hughes). Maybe I'm forgetting someone, but we weren't exactly the bully on the block picking on the little guys there. As for basketball, I remain unconvinced that we had a transfer problem rather than a coach problem. Sure, we lost a few good players via transfer...we got a couple too.

[Rotorooter]

Question for ml wave: In 2006, Matt Forte ran for 2000+ yds. for Tulane, who went 4-7. As a result, Matt never went to a bowl game. If he did not have to sit out a season via transfer, do you think Matt would have stayed at Tulane, or would he have gone to a (place named contender for a MNC here), a team who needed a quality RB to contend more effectively, so that he could possibly win a MNC or at least play in a bowl game? Do you think he might have been recruited by an Ohio St, LSU, Oklahoma or a West Virginia?

I think we all know the answers to the hypothetical. And it would happen over and over to the Tulane's of the world. And not necessarily vice versa. And they still are student-athletes to the NCAA, not mercenaries.

GSx's point is valid, the transfer rules helped us in baseball because we were a top program. Not transferable as an argument to football, because for years we were in a wasteland. You think it will help; most of us don't, with good reasoning. We agree to disagree.

[Poseidon]

Forte ran for over 2000 in 2007 his Senior year, but the point remains. A more recent candidate would be Tanziel Smart who was all conference going into his senior year. If he could transfer without penaty to a top 15 program he would be tempted and rightly so. Why rightly so? Because the if he transfers and improves his draft slot from a 6th round pick to a 2-3rd round pick he will guarantee himself a million more a year during the contract. Even if he imporves it from 6th to 4th he will see a signing bounus increase of 250-300k. After all of that say he was still set on having a degree that said Tulane on it he would come out better financially to transfer back to Tulane after football is done and finish.

[GreenieBacker]

the same could be argued for every single player who thought he had a good shot to make the NFL. They would take their game to whatever "Big" Program needed help at their position.

[Saintgreenie]

When I first heard about the possible changes to transfer rules a few months ago, I just rolled my eyes. That would be beyond terrible (for all the reasons waverider said). I'm not even sure I would be ok with that on a case by case basis such as Tanner Lee's (As of now, those player can get an extra year of eligibility, so they're not missing out on much).

Didn't NCAA change transfer rules for baseball a few years back that hurt schools like Tulane (mid-level private institutions)? What a broke system college football is if they make this rule change (which ultimately favors the "big time" programs) in the wake of that baseball change. Hell, what am I talking about? It's broke already.

Interesting that you think the baseball rule (free transfers, no sitting out) helped Tulane but the same in football would not.

Yep, others above have already explained why.

I don't even know how much of a direct impact it would have on Tulane short term. There aren't too many players in recent history that we would have been in danger of losing to the temptation of the big stage late in their college careers. Poseiden brought up Smart; Parry, Doss, and Santos are probably the only other significant ones. However, indirectly, it further widens that already massive gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" in college football. Take UCF for instance, how many soon to be seniors on their undefeated team would consider a jump to an SEC program and a shot at a "real" National Championship this Spring?

[ml wave]

Question for ml wave: In 2006, Matt Forte ran for 2000+ yds. for Tulane, who went 4-7. As a result, Matt never went to a bowl game. If he did not have to sit out a season via transfer, do you think Matt would have stayed at Tulane, or would he have gone to a (place named contender for a MNC here), a team who needed a quality RB to contend more effectively, so that he could possibly win a MNC or at least play in a bowl game? Do you think he might have been recruited by an Ohio St, LSU, Oklahoma or a West Virginia?

I think we all know the answers to the hypothetical. And it would happen over and over to the Tulane's of the world. And not necessarily vice versa. And they still are student-athletes to the NCAA, not mercenaries.

GSx's point is valid, the transfer rules helped us in baseball because we were a top program. Not transferable as an argument to football, because for years we were in a wasteland. You think it will help; most of us don't, with good reasoning. We agree to disagree.

I don't claim to know if it will help or not. However, I do think it's foolish to preemptively declare it the death knell of Tulane athletics...as if we have absolutely nothing to offer our student athletes who would simply all leave if not for the current penalties on transfers. In actuality, no one knows the answer to your hypothetical, but all existing evidence points the other way. Again, our best baseball transfers were from LSU and Georgia Tech--we weren't the rich robbing the poor. Grad transfers in football currently stand as 3 in (from LSU, Miami, and Vandy) and 1 out (to wherever Couillette winds up)...apologies if I've forgotten anyone here, but I think it's safe to say we're coming out ahead. To answer your question directly, I'd say sure, Forte would have stayed. His dad is an alum, he's from Slidell, he was going to be the entire focus of the offense...why not? If he wanted to transfer, he could easily have done so after Katrina.

Glad you brought up the student athlete aspect...there's no restrictions on the ability of other students to transfer, why should these students have their freedom restricted because they play sports?

[WaveProf]

Glad you brought up the student athlete aspect...there's no restrictions on the ability of other students to transfer, why should these students have their freedom restricted because they play sports?

Because they have a lot of money and resources invested in compared to that of other students


I also think it is ironic that you say there are "no restrictions" on other students, when Tulane specifically fiddles with course registration terminology to make it more difficult for students to transfer credits away from Tulane (because we have a retention problem compared to peer institutions). Tulane is famous for this in academic circles. It also creates the unintentional consequence of making it more difficult to transfer in (which is a problem that, in turn, negatively impacts athletics from time to time much to people's chagrin on here)

[LondonWave]

Tulane specifically twerks course registration terminology to make it more difficult for students to transfer credits away from Tulane (because we have a retention problem compared to peer institutions).

Are you sure Tulane is twerking?

[WaveProf]

Tulane specifically twerks course registration terminology to make it more difficult for students to transfer credits away from Tulane (because we have a retention problem compared to peer institutions).

Are you sure Tulane is twerking?

Tweaking maybe