Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

2nd of 2 big rule changes announced today.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/med ... ct-process

I read somewhere that a tampering rule was also placed, but no details on it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

css75 wrote:I read somewhere that a tampering rule was also placed, but no details on it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Additionally, the proposal adds tampering with a current student-athlete at another school to the list of potential Level 2 violations, considered a significant breach of conduct.

Interesting commentary on this.

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/orego ... iver_index

Note that this guy likes to stir things up out here in Portland so take it as you may. I did not see much in the way of commentary on this, and I think it deserves to be discussed. Yeah, FCS may lose some players who yearn for the spotlight of FBS, but at the same time, why should the player who lost his starting position at Oregon not be free to transfer to Portland State?

JALMOND wrote:Interesting commentary on this.

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/orego ... iver_index

Note that this guy likes to stir things up out here in Portland so take it as you may. I did not see much in the way of commentary on this, and I think it deserves to be discussed. Yeah, FCS may lose some players who yearn for the spotlight of FBS, but at the same time, why should the player who lost his starting position at Oregon not be free to transfer to Portland State?

It's a bit hysterical & overblown. Getting rid of the 1-year sit-out rule is what would really devastate smaller schools.

Mvemjsunpx wrote:

JALMOND wrote:Interesting commentary on this.

https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/orego ... iver_index

Note that this guy likes to stir things up out here in Portland so take it as you may. I did not see much in the way of commentary on this, and I think it deserves to be discussed. Yeah, FCS may lose some players who yearn for the spotlight of FBS, but at the same time, why should the player who lost his starting position at Oregon not be free to transfer to Portland State?

It's a bit hysterical & overblown. Getting rid of the 1-year sit-out rule is what would really devastate smaller schools.

So they’d still have to sit out a year to transfer up?

kalm wrote:

Mvemjsunpx wrote:
It's a bit hysterical & overblown. Getting rid of the 1-year sit-out rule is what would really devastate smaller schools.

So they’d still have to sit out a year to transfer up?

Yes, AFAIK, unless they're grad transferring.

The writer of the column JALMOND posted makes that incredibly unclear, though.

I've seen analysis that for all intents and purposes, this move makes G5/FCS and lower programs nothing more than P5 farm clubs. Not sure I like the sound of that....

SuperHornet wrote:I've seen analysis that for all intents and purposes, this move makes G5/FCS and lower programs nothing more than P5 farm clubs. Not sure I like the sound of that....

You still have to sit out. It just means coaches can’t stop a kid from accepting a scholarship somewhere else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The conference can still make rules against transferring to certain conferences and schools. So the Big Sky can still say a player can't transfer to an other Big Sky school. I believe that the Big Sky and most already have this rule, but I could be wrong on that.