rsigman13 said:

---

No more sitting out a year right away

---

This rule was already removed a couple years ago

It's now legal to pay players, including transfers, and we have one of the, if not the, largest, richest fan bases.

Why would we want to change anything and give away an advantage that we have over any other school??

Cs me crazy, but I've kind of gotten used to the way things are now with the portal

It doesnt bother me like it did when the free transfer was first introduced

It's part of the game now and schools/coaches just need to learn how to manage it

With Elko and Albert's here, I feel like we are positioned well in that regard.

When jimbo was here, not so much

I don't hate it. There would finally be some incentive for sticking around a school from the begining. I'm not sure you can totally lose the medical redshirt exemption though. The only downside is it does hurt players who are pushed out of their current programs. So programs can push other players out and force them to lose a year. And not multi-transfer guys are NFL. Jacob Zeno is an example of guy that has zero NFL prospects who is on his 3rd team (and his 7th year). He's clearly a guy we wanted for his age and scout team abilities.. not because we ever envisioned him throwing a meaningful pass.

Why should student-athletes be more restricted than Lane Kiffen???

Probably runs into the same antitrust issues that got us here in the first place. Limiting movement by reducing eligibility is going to trigger that because you're limiting competitiveness (in the context of earnings) and access to the market. I can almost guarantee you it would result in a lawsuit the NCAA would lose.

I don't think this is a bad idea, except that it is a fast-track to collective bargaining, and then trades, and then salary caps, and then minor league NFL teams that play on college campuses under the guise of "student athletics".

Which - now that I type all that out - is basically what we have today.

NIL is bad. Conference realignment is worse. And consolidation is next. There will be a super-division in 5 years time, and the result will be everything I described above, with a much smaller pool of college teams selected because of viewership to play in "the bigs".

Maybe the other schools will form into regional small conferences, kinda like the SWC was back in the day.

As a Tech fan, I am honestly not sure if I want Tech to be in that super-division. I think we'll lose more than we gain. But that decision is well out of my hands and ability to influence, so I will sit back and watch the SEC and B1G ESPN and Disney pick and choose who they want and maybe it will work out for the best.

I'm only in favor of changing transfer rules if the same rules apply to coaches leaving programs.

This last playoff was the most interesting of all playoffs and NCs by far. Not sure the problems you are pointing to exist.

It won't ever happen, can't realistically go backwards at this point....but what could/should have happened before the floodgates opened would be something like this:

1. Tie their NIL payout to their degree (yeah yeah, i know....but make a degree matter, dammit)
2. In the interim, they all get the same stipend amount (it's more than they were getting before)
These two above will keep the locker room dynamic even keel, year to year

Then the basics for the rest of it would be:
3. You're wide open to pursue whatever NIL deal comes your way
4. The delta between your stipend from #2 above vs your total NIL earnings will be kept in an interest bearing account on your behalf. You can look at it and drool over it as much as you'd like, but you still can't touch it until you've met #1 above
5. You go pro early? Congrats! We'll give you +5 more years to still satisfy #1 above. And if you don't, it's forfeited, and gets redistributed across the team. You had plenty of time.
6. You have a career ending injury? That's horrible, and the money is yours, no questions asked. But it's still recommended you finish your degree anyway
7. You TRANSFER? Yikes, ok....best of luck. Stipend stops from current school, and new school starts their own. Stipends received up to that point are already yours. But whatever NIL earnings had stacked up at current school is now forfeited, and it gets redistributed across the team. Your NIL can then start over, from scratch, at your new school. And again, best of luck.

TheRatt87 said:

---

It's now legal to pay players, including transfers, and we have one of the, if not the, largest, richest fan bases.

Why would we want to change anything and give away an advantage that we have over any other school??

---

It's always been happening.
All we're really talking about is what % of it happens above board, versus still under the table.

TheRatt87 said:

---

It's now legal to pay players, including transfers, and we have one of the, if not the, largest, richest fan bases.

Why would we want to change anything and give away an advantage that we have over any other school??

---

i hate everything about what college football is becoming but it is simple economics and now we are a big boy. as ags we should love the new paradigm we are a player but i hate it for college football.

The OP posted a solid solution. I think implementing multi-year contracts, penalties for breaking them, and a 6-year eligibility cap is sustainable solution. A structured contract system would introduce roster stability for coaches, predictability for players, reduced poaching, and clear NIL valuation tied to contract length and performance tiers. You need real consequences or contracts are meaningless. Possible penalties include buyout, sit-out period (i.e. 4 games), reduced NIL eligibility for that season, or rosterspot limits. A hard cap at 6 years would prevent career college players, force roster turnover, keep competitive balance, and reduces the incentive to hop schools repeatedly.

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

i hate everything about what college football is becoming but it is simple economics and now we are a big boy. as ags we should love the new paradigm we are a player but i hate it for college football.

---

Tech fan here and I feel exactly the same. Tech has benefitted at least as much as any other school from these changes, and maybe more than any other school, and I'm glad for that for Tech. But as a 60 year old college football fan, I hate what it (and conference expansion/realignment) has done to the sport I grew up loving so much.

Makes me sad. I still miss the SWC and the days of regionally-aligned conferences, and the rivalry between family and neighbors and co-workers that went along with them. The sport has been anchored by money for decades, but there were always other elements around it that made it fun. It's no longer anchored by money. It is just money now... money that features a logo from whatever school we happen to cheer for.

Almost none of this would have survived the first lawsuit. Any restrictions on NIL are basically off the table, including tying it to playing at a school or trying to delay it. Any direct stipends may be fair game for some level of regulation, but the NCAA would have to be careful. Tying it to a degree is definitely going to be off the table, though. You can't tie compensation to something that hinders movement.

The only thing that changes anything at this point is a CBA.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

The OP posted a solid solution. I think implementing multi-year contracts, penalties for breaking them, and a 6-year eligibility cap is sustainable solution. A structured contract system would introduce roster stability for coaches, predictability for players, reduced poaching, and clear NIL valuation tied to contract length and performance tiers. You need real consequences or contracts are meaningless. Possible penalties include buyout, sit-out period (i.e. 4 games), reduced NIL eligibility for that season, or rosterspot limits. A hard cap at 6 years would prevent career college players, force roster turnover, keep competitive balance, and reduces the incentive to hop schools repeatedly.

---

Why should you dictate the solution to student athletes after the NCAA has repeatedly been ruled against for anti-trust law violations?

All of this will be fixed when fan bases and institutions realize that athletes need the institutions. Institutions will and have survived without sports. Players will not survive without institutions unless there is a minor league system (not university based).