Should a school be able to block a transfer to any D1 school?

[Karma]

K-State is going through this now. I know you can put limitations like no school in the conference or on the schedule, but KSU has told this kid they won't release him to anywhere. That doesn't seem right to me.

https://twitter.com/Andrew__Carter/status/870435423566344192

[RazorWest]

If things aren't working out and he can get on somewhere else let him go.  Even if it's the same division.  I seriously doubt having a playbook from his previous team is going to substantially help his new team if they play.  JMO

[hogsanity]

Players should get one transfer with no penalty, to anywhere other than other schools in their conference. Schools should not be able to do what KSU is doing. IF a player wants to leave, and is willing to sit out a year to do so, that should be the end of it.

These schools keep pulling crap like this, and eventually the courts will get involved, and once that happens, college sports will look vastly different.

[Exit Pursued by a Boar]

The answer to your question is no.

EFBAB

[MuskogeeHogFan]

K-State is going through this now. I know you can put limitations like no school in the conference or on the schedule, but KSU has told this kid they won't release him to anywhere. That doesn't seem right to me.

https://twitter.com/Andrew__Carter/status/870435423566344192

Not sure if this is the article that Snyder referred to as "most of it being wrong" and being written by "some local hack".

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/big-12/kansas-state/article153670459.html

That said, if the kid wants to transfer, send him down the road. Who wants someone that is uncommitted on your team? Not releasing him does nothing but bring bad press.

[NuttinItUp]

He could transfer to a Division 1 - FCS school (or Division 2 or 3) with no penalty year, or he could transfer to another Division 1 - FBS school and have to sit out a year. (not that big of a deal if he still has a redshirt year available)

The rules aren't really as draconian as you guys are making them out to be.

[hogsanity]

He could transfer to a Division 1 - FCS school (or Division 2 or 3) with no penalty year, or he could transfer to another Division 1 - FBS school and have to sit out a year. (not that big of a deal if he still has a redshirt year available)

The rules aren't really as draconian as you guys are making them out to be.

I believe, without a release the player has to sit 2 years, and can not be on athletic financial aid while sitting out unless he gets a release.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

He could transfer to a Division 1 - FCS school (or Division 2 or 3) with no penalty year, or he could transfer to another Division 1 - FBS school and have to sit out a year. (not that big of a deal if he still has a redshirt year available)

The rules aren't really as draconian as you guys are making them out to be.

The release allows him to receive a scholarship at the receiving school. No release, no scholarship.

[NuttinItUp]

I believe, without a release the player has to sit 2 years, and can not be on athletic financial aid while sitting out unless he gets a release.

Assuming it is their first transfer, they have to sit out "one academic year of competition".

The release allows him to receive a scholarship at the receiving school. No release, no scholarship.

The transferring athlete cannot have a scholarship for the academic year of competition that they sit out. They can receive a scholarship after that.

[MultipleScoreGasms]

What if the player takes a "screw KSTATE approach, applies to the school of his choosing, sits out a year, then attempts to make the team the following year?  How could KSTATE prevent the new school from extending a scholarship offer?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Assuming it is their first transfer, they have to sit out "one academic year of competition".
The transferring athlete cannot have a scholarship for the academic year of competition that they sit out. They can receive a scholarship after that.

I'm not sure that is right. You could be, I am just not sure.

[WilsonHog]

I'll agree to a player not being allowed to transfer anywhere he wants right after his coach agrees to not leave the program for another job while the player has eligibility remaining.

[Karma]

I'll agree to a player not being allowed to transfer anywhere he wants right after his coach agrees to not leave the program for another job while the player has eligibility remaining.

Exactly. Or make the scholarships 4 year commitments. Right now the school can dump a player after a year, but the player doesn't have freedom to go where he wants.

[ricepig]

The transferring athlete cannot have a scholarship for the academic year of competition that they sit out. They can receive a scholarship after that.

Wrong.

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/college-transfer-4-4.htm

[NuttinItUp]

I'm not sure that is right. You could be, I am just not sure.

"If your current school does not grant you written permission-to-contact, the new school cannot encourage you to transfer and — in Divisions I and II — cannot give you an athletics scholarship until you have attended the new school for one academic year. "
http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/current/transfer-terms

"...the school may not give the athlete an athletic scholarship for the first year the athlete attends the school."
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/college-transfer-4-4.htm


...etc...

[NuttinItUp]

Wrong.

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/college-transfer-4-4.htm

Right.

See quoted text above.

[ricepig]

"If your current school does not grant you written permission-to-contact, the new school cannot encourage you to transfer and — in Divisions I and II — cannot give you an athletics scholarship until you have attended the new school for one academic year. "
http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/current/transfer-terms

"...the school may not give the athlete an athletic scholarship for the first year the athlete attends the school."
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/college-transfer-4-4.htm


...etc...

If, you aren't granted a release.

[NuttinItUp]

If, you aren't granted a release.

Correct. If a student is not granted a release, they are not allowed to have a scholarship from the new school for one year.

That is what I said initially.

[Suidae Suis Scrofa]

According to ESPN, Snyder's argument is that if he starts letting all of the 2nd stringers go just because they want more playing time, then pretty soon he wouldn't have a team left.

I have no problem with KState not releasing the player if they don't want to.  The kid signed a contract to play at KState and he can't expect to break that contract without some consequences.  In this case the consequence is that he has to sit out a year and pay for his own college education (oh the horror).

If this is the case of a kid making a poor life choice, then hopefully he'll learn form the experience and make better decisions in the future.

-phil

[MuskogeeHogFan]

"If your current school does not grant you written permission-to-contact, the new school cannot encourage you to transfer and — in Divisions I and II — cannot give you an athletics scholarship until you have attended the new school for one academic year. "
http://www.ncaa.org/student-athletes/current/transfer-terms

"...the school may not give the athlete an athletic scholarship for the first year the athlete attends the school."
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/college-transfer-4-4.htm


...etc...

I agree with that. That just isn't what I said. That's why I said above that the release was necessary for the kid to receive a scholarship when he transfers, which is one reason the kid is throwing a fit.

On top of that, submitting a list of 35 schools and not agreeing to any of them? There has to be more to this story than what we are getting so far.

[ricepig]

Correct. If a student is not granted a release, they are not allowed to have a scholarship from the new school for one year.

That is what I said initially.

Well, it didn't read that way, lol, or maybe I didn't read it that way. Anyway, no release, no scholarship.

[NuttinItUp]

Also, the kid apparently failed 2 drug tests:

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/bill-snyder-state-wr-corey-sutton-failed-drug/story?id=47782628

[NuttinItUp]

Well, it didn't read that way, lol, or maybe I didn't read it that way. Anyway, no release, no scholarship.

Right, no release, no scholarship for one year. After that, scholarship.

I apologize if I was unclear to begin with.

[ricepig]

Also, the kid apparently failed 2 drug tests:

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/bill-snyder-state-wr-corey-sutton-failed-drug/story?id=47782628

Which shouldn't have anything to do with his release.

[NuttinItUp]

Which shouldn't have anything to do with his release.

Correct. I never claimed that it did.

[ricepig]

Correct. I never claimed that it did.

I never claimed you did.

[hogsanity]

According to ESPN, Snyder's argument is that if he starts letting all of the 2nd stringers go just because they want more playing time, then pretty soon he wouldn't have a team left.

I have no problem with KState not releasing the player if they don't want to.  The kid signed a contract to play at KState and he can't expect to break that contract without some consequences.  In this case the consequence is that he has to sit out a year and pay for his own college education (oh the horror).

If this is the case of a kid making a poor life choice, then hopefully he'll learn form the experience and make better decisions in the future.

-phil

yet K-state can yank his scholarship at any time with no penalty.

[NuttinItUp]

According to ESPN, Snyder's argument is that if he starts letting all of the 2nd stringers go just because they want more playing time, then pretty soon he wouldn't have a team left.

I have no problem with KState not releasing the player if they don't want to.  The kid signed a contract to play at KState and he can't expect to break that contract without some consequences.  In this case the consequence is that he has to sit out a year and pay for his own college education (oh the horror).

If this is the case of a kid making a poor life choice, then hopefully he'll learn form the experience and make better decisions in the future.

-phil

Also, if he wanted to go play JUCO for a year he could do so with no penalty. (no sit out year, no loss of scholarship)

The Netflix show "Last Chance U" follows around a lot of athletes that do this.

[NuttinItUp]

I never claimed you did.

I never claimed that you claimed that I did.

(how far down the rabbit hole can this go? haha)

[kp72204]

I think you should be able to transfer, but you should sit out one year. That way the game is not to be confused with having free agency. If your a grad transfer you should be able to play immediately. I also think that if your main recruiter leaves for another school and he's the only reason you picked said school and you have eligibility left then by all means transfer. Side note: Has there ever been a star player transfer after having a big year without being injured? Just decided he wanted to be elsewhere>

[bkjbearcat]

Well here are links of Snyders interview with local KC sports talk host and K State grad Kevin Keitzman.

http://www.810whb.com/between-the-lines/

http://www.810whb.com/2017/06/01/bill-snyder-update-with-kevin/

[nwahogfan1]

According to ESPN, Snyder's argument is that if he starts letting all of the 2nd stringers go just because they want more playing time, then pretty soon he wouldn't have a team left.

I have no problem with KState not releasing the player if they don't want to.  The kid signed a contract to play at KState and he can't expect to break that contract without some consequences.  In this case the consequence is that he has to sit out a year and pay for his own college education (oh the horror).

If this is the case of a kid making a poor life choice, then hopefully he'll learn form the experience and make better decisions in the future.

-phil

I agree with this also.  I trust Coach Snyder to do what is right.  He has been doing this too long and I have too much respect for him.  If the young man had a legitimate reason that him and Coach agreed with then I am sure there would be no problem.

[hogsanity]

According to ESPN, Snyder's argument is that if he starts letting all of the 2nd stringers go just because they want more playing time, then pretty soon he wouldn't have a team left.

I have no problem with KState not releasing the player if they don't want to.  The kid signed a contract to play at KState and he can't expect to break that contract without some consequences.  In this case the consequence is that he has to sit out a year and pay for his own college education (oh the horror).

If this is the case of a kid making a poor life choice, then hopefully he'll learn form the experience and make better decisions in the future.

-phil

The kid isn't expecting there to be no consequences, he knows he has to sit out a year. As far as paying for school, many of these kids come from families that can't afford it. Is there a penalty for KSU if they decide not to renew a players scholarship?

[Karma]

The kid isn't expecting there to be no consequences, he knows he has to sit out a year. As far as paying for school, many of these kids come from families that can't afford it. Is there a penalty for KSU if they decide not to renew a players scholarship?

I'll answer that for you, no there's not. If KSU didn't want him on scholarship, they could have not renewed it and he had no recourse. One way street.

[ErieHog]

yet K-state can yank his scholarship at any time with no penalty.

That's the nature of the deal.  These kids aren't signing on blindly.    No one is forcing them to sign, if that burden is too great.

[hogsanity]

That's the nature of the deal.  These kids aren't signing on blindly.    No one is forcing them to sign, if that burden is too great.

I know that, but all these people saying " He signed a contract, he has to live with his choices " seem to forget that the school signed too, and if they decide they made a mistake, they can just not renew it and leave the kid twisting in the wind.

[ErieHog]

I know that, but all these people saying " He signed a contract, he has to live with his choices " seem to forget that the school signed too, and if they decide they made a mistake, they can just not renew it and leave the kid twisting in the wind.

The school's obligations are clear-- and they aren't nearly so burdensome as the player's obligations.   That's part of the deal.

[Grizzlyfan]

I get the commitment and signing a contract, but these are footballs players not indentured servants.  Contracts don't seem to mean much to coaches leaving for a new school.  OR schools firing coaches.

[sickboy]

I don't like it. I don't like an institution telling an individual what they can and can't do after they leave said institution. The institution always has its own interest in mind and never the individual. I prefer to let the individual decide what is best for his own life and take control out of the institution's hands.

[hogsanity]

I don't like it. I don't like an institution telling an individual what they can and can't do after they leave said institution. The institution always has its own interest in mind and never the individual. I prefer to let the individual decide what is best for his own life and take control out of the institution's hands.

In this instance it just make Snyder sound like a grumpy old man.  The kid does not want to sit on my bench, so I won't let him sit on any bench. Whats funny is how many juco and transfers Snyder has relied on over the years to field his teams.

[Hawghiggs]

Also, the kid apparently failed 2 drug tests:

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/bill-snyder-state-wr-corey-sutton-failed-drug/story?id=47782628

Two things. 1st, Why wasn't this kid suspended? 2nd, Why is Snyder allowed to reveal private information?

[oldhawg]

Which shouldn't have anything to do with his release.

Do signed letters of intent have a binding statement about drug use?  If so, this could be a legal basis for not granting or restricting releases.  Just curious, I really don't know.
Just curious, I really don't know.

[redleg]

If I were the head coach at Arkansas, and one of my players wanted to transfer, I would let him go as long as it wasn't to a conference rival. Why should I allow a player to go to a rival school, especially one that might help them beat my team. Other than that, the kid can transfer to any other school he wants.
:razorback:

[ricepig]

Granted his full release.


https://twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCFB/status/870721150799630336

[hogsanity]

Granted his full release.


https://twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCFB/status/870721150799630336

all that bluster, and looking bad, then they give him what they should have in the 1st place.

[WilsonHog]

Granted his full release.


https://twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCFB/status/870721150799630336

The KState AD probably saw the video of Snyder's comments, and the next conversation he had started with, "Dammit, Bill..."

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The KState AD probably saw the video of Snyder's comments, and the next conversation he had started with, "Dammit, Bill..."

Not sure if this is the article that Snyder referred to as "most of it being wrong" and being written by "some local hack".

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/big-12/kansas-state/article153670459.html

That said, if the kid wants to transfer, send him down the road. Who wants someone that is uncommitted on your team? Not releasing him does nothing but bring bad press.

Totally agree. No need to have even gone through all of this business. Should have just cut him loose in the beginning.

[East Clintwood]

I think they should be able to restrict where a player can transfer -- not within the conference and not to a team on the schools schedule but beyond that the player ought to be able to go anywhere else.

[East Clintwood]

Also, has anyone ever challenged this in court?

I would think the courts would look at this like they look at non-competes.  They can have narrow focus and be valid but if the restrictions are too broad, they won't be upheld.

[Karma]

Also, has anyone ever challenged this in court?

I would think the courts would look at this like they look at non-competes.  They can have narrow focus and be valid but if the restrictions are too broad, they won't be upheld.

I agree. Though the whole NCAA system is just a string that if pulled would fall apart.