Transfers

canyoncat · Post by **canyoncat** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:16 am

With the two new tranfers (Rolovich and Wheaton) declaring already, will we be seeing them for spring ball? I think it is real important for transfers to come in early and get acclimated to Bozeman and the system. Especially on offense.

Any rumors on other transfers?

94VegasCat · Post by **94VegasCat** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:20 am

My guess would be that they will be in for Spring ball. Probably why Kramer issued the ultimatim to Swogger.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:28 am

I am sure that we will see both of them in spring ball. I guarantee you that Rolovich will be in Bozeman at the start of the second semester since Hawaii is taking him off scholarship at the end of the current semester.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:53 am

mquast53000 wrote:I am sure that we will see both of them in spring ball. I guarantee you that Rolovich will be in Bozeman at the start of the second semester since Hawaii is taking him off scholarship at the end of the current semester.

He might as well start getting used to the weather.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:27 pm

mquast53000 wrote:I am sure that we will see both of them in spring ball. I guarantee you that Rolovich will be in Bozeman at the start of the second semester since Hawaii is taking him off scholarship at the end of the current semester.

Rolovich asked to be released from his scholarship, and UH complied with his wish.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:06 pm

The ESPN announcers stated that of the 16 playoff teams in this year's I-AA palyoffs, 12 starting QBs were I-A drop downs.

I guess that explains Kramer's intent on getting such a QB.

anacondagriz · Post by **anacondagriz** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:55 pm

Bleedinbluengold wrote:The ESPN announcers stated that of the 16 playoff teams in this year's I-AA palyoffs, 12 starting QBs were I-A drop downs.

I guess that explains Kramer's intent on getting such a QB.

What? That can't be right. Neither Berquist nor Cal Poly's starting QBs were drop downs, neither was Meyer or Santos at UNH. The only one I can think of is Ingle Martin at Furman. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

spider · Post by **spider** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:33 pm

They were referring to last year's playoffs. I still doubt they were right though.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:45 pm

anacondagriz wrote:
Bleedinbluengold wrote:The ESPN announcers stated that of the 16 playoff teams in this year's I-AA palyoffs, 12 starting QBs were I-A drop downs.

I guess that explains Kramer's intent on getting such a QB.
What? That can't be right. Neither Berquist nor Cal Poly's starting QBs were drop downs, neither was Meyer or Santos at UNH. The only one I can think of is Ingle Martin at Furman. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.

The only dropdowns I know are Ingle Martin from Furman and Barrick Nealy from Texas St.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:17 pm

longhorn_22 wrote:
anacondagriz wrote:
Bleedinbluengold wrote:The ESPN announcers stated that of the 16 playoff teams in this year's I-AA palyoffs, 12 starting QBs were I-A drop downs.

I guess that explains Kramer's intent on getting such a QB.
What? That can't be right. Neither Berquist nor Cal Poly's starting QBs were drop downs, neither was Meyer or Santos at UNH. The only one I can think of is Ingle Martin at Furman. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.
The only dropdowns I know are Ingle Martin from Furman and Barrick Nealy from Texas St.

ESPN seemed to make repeated (gratuitous) references to dropdowns ... I don't think it was a coincidence. They seemed to be painting I-AA as a dropdown league, so I wouldn't be shocked if somebody threw out that comment without really researching it too well.

Does Cal Poly have any dropdowns? Watching them play Texas State was a little disheartening ... the team who does it right (high school recruits, good school, etc.) getting beat by a team loaded with guys who went to Texas State as a fallback position after not making the cut at the higher level. The ESPN announcers made it sound like Texas State was a rehab unit for washouts from major programs.

I really just wish the rules would change and that I-AA schools would not be able to get dropdowns without a one year delay, just like I-A. It seems to have really corrupted the whole division and turned it into a mercenary league.

Sure, it's great when it works out well for the home team, but I'd still rather it not be so commonplace anywhere.

tetoncat · Post by **tetoncat** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:39 am

BAC, i also think if they made them sit out a year it would make kids decide earlier in their career and if they did drop down, schools would have them for 2 or 3 years instead of the one year wonders.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:48 am

tetoncat wrote:BAC, i also think if they made them sit out a year it would make kids decide earlier in their career and if they did drop down, schools would have them for 2 or 3 years instead of the one year wonders.

To go even further, I think it would force them to perhaps decide to attend a I-AA school right out of high school as opposed to reaching for a more glamorous school, knowing that if it doesn't work out right away they can just easily transfer to a I-AA program. It would keep a lot more kids in the same school for four or five years, which might make it a bit easier for them to get an education as well.

anacondagriz · Post by **anacondagriz** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:01 am

The problem w/the idea of not allowing players to just down & play right away is that it is logical, which totally goes against everything the NCAA stands for.

Helcat72 · Post by **Helcat72** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:03 am

How about walkons...or even scholarship players at the 1-AA level who never play...and then transfer to NAIA?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:09 am

Helcat72 wrote:How about walkons...or even scholarship players at the 1-AA level who never play...and then transfer to NAIA?

If the NCAA changed its rules, it wouldn't impact players transferring to NAIA schools.

Although, that being said, I don't even care about people transferring out of I-AA to move down. My main concern is that I-AA is being seen as a division comprised of washouts from the "real" schools, and I don't like that stigma.

Platinumcat · Post by **Platinumcat** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:00 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Helcat72 wrote:How about walkons...or even scholarship players at the 1-AA level who never play...and then transfer to NAIA?
If the NCAA changed its rules, it wouldn't impact players transferring to NAIA schools.

Although, that being said, I don't even care about people transferring out of I-AA to move down. My main concern is that I-AA is being seen as a division comprised of washouts from the "real" schools, and I don't like that stigma.

BAC,
Don't you suppose that's exactly what the I-A people are saying?

The thing about I-A transfers for me is that the player should know before the time his fourth year is up (5th year seniors) that things aren't working out. I don't really like seeing people come here for just one year. I would like to see the NCAA change the rules to reflect a minimum of two years eligibility in order to switch schools.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:26 pm

Yeah, I'm sure that's the same thing they are thinking ... and that's why I-AA is in the crappy perception position it is.

Although I am fairly certain that if all I-AA schools wanted to change the rules, they could. It's probably a matter of nobody wanting to be the ones to take a stand on something that might keep their own school from landing a couple big transfers and winning a bunch of games.

BobcatLionFan · Post by **BobcatLionFan** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:39 pm

I think it's fair to look at it from the player's view point. A lot of these kids either thought they were going to be stud players at the school that they went to or there are coaching changes along the way.

Example is big schools get 1 or 2 QBs a year. One ends up being the starter (say it's a Red Shirt Freshman or Soph). The tobe Junior or Senior is going to sit on the bench. Should he be allowed to move to another school to play or should the system just say sorry, you made your choice two-three years ago and it's your tough luck.

Also, what happens when a new coach (or existing coach) says I don't think you fit my system and I'm pulling your scholarship at the end of the year. They can do this! Hell MSU does this!! These Div-I players can't just go to another Div I school. Should they be given the chance to play somewhere?

What happens when a coach moves on (that likes passing) and a new coach comes in that likes different players and running the ball. Or a coach puts you in the dog house and you are never going to get out (How many of us get along with everyone and do we have some people that it will never work out with?)

College football is a business. Coaches get paid big money to win (or they are let go). Schools get a lot of money (playing Div-I schools or bowls or from their alumni if the team wins). Player get scholarships valued at $100,000+. The kids should be treated like they have rights. Right now, they are very limited once they choose a school during their senior year. They are locked in.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:47 pm

Great post.

Here's something else to consider. Why should an athlete (scholarship or not) be punished for transfering when any non-athlete co-ed could transfer to another school to continue his/her education without sitting out a year?

Further, perhaps the I-A player is going to lose his scholarship, but if he/she transfers to a I-AA, he could continue to get assistance while he completes his degree.