Pac-12 eliminates intraconference transfer rule

I don’t like this at all. Good luck trying to enforce any poaching or meddling of players; if that will even be an issue.


Can anyone suggest to me any reason how this helps PAC-12 member schools?

It will keep the kids from trying to unionize .

If they feel their voices are heard.

It does benefit the kids if they dont think they are going to play they can move. Just like anyone in any other walk of life on campus.

It does make tamperingeasier but aau firends and cell phones make that easy already

It helps PAC 12 schools by possibly keeping talent looking to leave their school within the conference as opposed to going to other conferences. I wish they would have modified the rule and made the transferring student ineligible to participate in games against his former school for one year following the transfer.

Kids can do this in every other conference but the P12 prior to this. This is just the P12 trying to remain competitive in recruiting. If I am down between Texas and Utah and Texas allows me to come without a “non-compete clause” and Utah doesn’t I would choose Texas.

Why? For your feelings? This is a pro-player rule. It very much makes the schools more accountable in how they treat players.

1 Like

Pro-player is okay, but pro-football is more important to me. The question everyone is asking is “what’s easiest/best/fairest for players?” What they should ask is “what’s best for this sport?” Often, there’s overlap in the answers, but ultimately, doing what’s best for the sport is how you can positively affect the most players for the longest time.

1 Like

Look, the Universities make all the money. I think allowing freewill of who you make it for is only fair.
Now excuse me as my team just signed a 5* leading tackler from our rival. Lol

I agree. I am primarily, far and away, a fan of the University of Utah, not its individual players. I can see the argument that this is good for the conference as a whole, but I don’t see how it’s really good for the U. In football, for example, our head coach is famous for picking diamonds in the rough and coaching them up. How many of those players, after a year or two at Utah, will be picked off by USC, Stanford, Oregon, etc.?

I agree with UTEopia. If the conferences are bent on doing this, at least require a transferring player to wait one season before playing for a conference rival.

It is too bad if every every other P5 conference is doing this. They should not.

Why shouldn’t they? If they believe they treat the players right and give them the best chance to win and go on to the league why would they be afraid of someone poaching a player? Also, why should it be on the player to sit out a year but not the coaches who take better jobs? It’s why College sports are so hypocritical. We expect loyalty from the students but not the staff or universities.

This reminds me of a gender equity training I went to 4-5 years ago. The trainer spent an hour talking about how bad men are. Then the conclusion…women should be more like men!

If the problem is that coaches can transfer without penalty, maybe we should do away with that. If the problem is that coaches get millions of dollars, maybe we should put a cap in place. Maybe there should be standard contracts/timelines to end the silliness.

I believe it’s too late and that a free-for-all in college atheltics is coming. I hope some of the positive aspects of college sports survive.

I’m more worried about universities than coaches. The power is with them and they don’t cover players long-term medical or share their profits. Yet, prices are going up and I am not seeing it go to anyone but the property value of the university and coach compensation.

Hardly. Requiring a player to sit one game will, to some small degree, compensate the school he is leaving for the investment of time and money expended on him that will now benefit a competitor. Look at it like the buyout that coaches have in their contracts. If a player really wants out, sitting one game is not going to be a big disincentive.

I guess we’ll just agree to disagree on this.

Seems like it’s a sour grapes rule. Honestly, I hate non-competes in any working environment. So, I don’t see the point of the rule other than to cover a possible bad coach or university from having to face a player they didn’t take care of the way they promised.

It’s a fair assessment. I see your POV but to me, I will always side with players over the University on these type of rules. Will there be bad faith actors from the players side, sure. I see more bad faith coming from Coaches and Universities more often.

1 Like

Again, the best answer to corruption isn’t to make it more widely available. It’s to shut it down.

That said, I think all ships have sailed at this point. There’s no way to tame the beast, so just giving the the players a cut and hoping for the best is not an unreasonable approach.

It’s an old issue. I don’t think anything has really sailed.

In that case, let’s roll back the clock, institute salary caps, and make this whole thing about student athletes and amateurism. That really is the best solution.

I say we roll it back further. No Schools involved with sports. It should be club systems.

I think this is good for Utah. Utah has a family culture that can attract very good players that either don’t fit in at other places or players that want it all as well as an amazing brotherhood.

1 Like