Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
Many may disagree but we have basically letting the players run CF.
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 17
| visibility 1

Many may disagree but we have basically letting the players run CF.


Nov 30, 2021, 1:03 PM

You factor in the TP, player’s being able to opt out of BG’s or any game during the season along with the NIL Benefits, it has become much harder to determine who is really running things. Take Lyn J Dixon for example. I believe he would have earned some playing time this year but for some reasons I don’t know about he was always in CJ’s dog house. Then he goes to the Transfer Portal. The more leverage the player’s continue to obtain.

A few of the worst changes in CF over last 15 yrs in my opinion:
1. Transfer Portal
2. Initial Targeting Rule
3. Replay official’s
4. 10 yr. coaching contracts/ will we every learn
5. NIL

I hope for very selfish reasons BV and TE stay at Clemson. Go Tigers. Best to everyone part of Tiger Nation. May all prayers be answered for those who requested them or those who need them.

I know it’s hard to go on a social website and bare your soul, especially when it’s bad news. It takes a lot of courage to ask for help and prayers. But I can say that the Clemson Family are some of the most generous and giving people. I feel privileged to be a part of such a great family.


Message was edited by: wueagle86®


Message was edited by: wueagle86®


2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Many may disagree but we have basically letting the players football


Nov 30, 2021, 1:06 PM

This post was edited? Lol

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Many may disagree but we have basically letting the players football


Nov 30, 2021, 1:41 PM

Twice

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Many may disagree but we have basically letting the players football


Dec 1, 2021, 2:06 AM

Edited twice Due to spelling mistakes

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


It were


Nov 30, 2021, 2:22 PM [ in reply to Re: Many may disagree but we have basically letting the players football ]

Lol

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

My view on this


Nov 30, 2021, 1:29 PM

Some of your post seems backwards to me (of course, that's just my opinion). The fact is these changes (NIL and Transfer Portal) are in reaction to years of the exploitation of the central cogs in what makes college football exciting (and thus a money maker). Players had very little freedom to earn, to move to situations that benefitted them, to really do much of anything to dictate their future, and so the rule changes come to recognize that as people (the people folks pay to see play a game) they should have much more freedom to determine their paths.

I know the changes will effect the game. I don't think I could honestly say they are effecting the game/sport for the better currently, but that doesn't make them wrong. It'll take CFB changing and recognizing these shifting forces (and honestly, the TP will likely slow WAY down in a few years as players begin to see the actual end result of some getting left out and moving to situations that were, in fact, not better).

But at the end of the day, the players' rights causing a problem to the sport doesn't make the rules themself wrong, and maybe in fact they highlight the issues that existed before.

A rather simple solution to this is to pursue the players-as-employees model, but that, of course, opens up a host of other financial and liability problems.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-20yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Many may disagree but we have basically letting the players run CF.


Nov 30, 2021, 1:39 PM

I have no issues with players having more freedoms to find playing time or better situations. I think the transfer portal is a good concept, but like a lot of things will probably require some adjusting to how it works at some point. I think finding a way to limit how many transfers a program can accept within a year would be a good start.

I also wouldn't mind seeing ideas to motivate players to want to stick it out at their first school. If a player has graduated then reward them by allowing a transfer without sitting out any games at their new school. If a player has only been at a school for 1 or 2 years then make the player sit out a year at the new school. If a player has been at at school for 3 or 4 years but hasn't graduated yet then make them sit out the first 6 games at the new school. I'm sure smarter people than me would have even better ideas, but I do think some changes will need to be made with the way things are currently heading.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Many may disagree but we have basically letting the players run CF.


Nov 30, 2021, 1:44 PM

Or another idea to add to my post above. Make it to where a school can only accept an incoming transfer to replace a spot they lost to the transfer portal at the same position. For instance, a team has a receiver leave via the transfer portal then they can use the portal to get a receiver to take place of the one they just lost.

I don't hate the idea of players having options, but what I don't like is the thought of a team doing a bad job of evaluating the QB position in recruiting for instance and deciding they have to use the portal to get a QB in order to make up for their mistakes in recruiting. What I mean by this, is for example let's say the Clemson coaches decided DJ isn't the answer at QB(no comments on the situation, only using it for an example) and they look to the portal to find a potential starter at QB for next season simply because DJ isn't playing as well as they hoped he would when they recruited him. I don't like the idea of the portal bailing out the Clemson coaches in that type of situation, but it seems to be happening all over the country right now.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Many may disagree but we have basically letting the players run CF.


Nov 30, 2021, 2:45 PM

Like these ideas Clem2003. I’m with you that the transfer portal isn’t all bad but it feels like it was knee jerk’d out in its current format. I think limiting the number of transfers out would also help with the timing of kids entering the portal and potentially mitigate the mid-season departures. I’d also be in favor of there being some form of clawback for any kids entering the portal after a certain time. Lot of employment / bonus agreements have this type of thing. Freedom of choice is good, freedom to bolt at any time with zero responsibility or accountability shouldn’t be in any collegiate player system.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Amen Brother!!


Nov 30, 2021, 2:57 PM

nm

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


So the solution is to keep players tied up...


Dec 1, 2021, 2:20 AM

while coaches, conferences, networks, commentators, broadcasters and universities can do whatever they please? That's immoral.

The absolutely ridiculous money train has transformed CFB into raw, unadulterated capitalism and the players must be allowed to participate. This is America!

If coaches can leave for another job in the drop of a hat, why shouldn't players be allowed to transfer just as easily?

If Brian Kelly can abandon a team with a decent chance at the CFP, why shouldn't players be allowed to sit out bowl games (including CFP games) if they choose?

If you honestly believe NIL, the transfer portal, targeting rules amount to "letting the players run CF", I really don't know what to say other than the obvious truth:

Money runs CFB and the players get the smallest slice of it BY FAR. Whining about the TP and NIL is like worrying about sweating in your clothes while trapped in a fire that's about to kill you.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: So the solution is to keep players tied up...


Dec 1, 2021, 5:46 AM

Not saying I disagree with your points but you act like the players are forced to play for any school and ignore the fact that they go to college free of charge. I don’t disagree that they should get a slice of the pie but painting them as victims and comparing them to a person working for a school is wild. They’ll figure it out though times adjust, back in the day the players seemed happy enough for the scholarship and chance at the league, these days players want more so they will get more it’s inevitable. But if the players want to be like coaches free to leave and do whatever they want then they need to be reclassified as professionals.

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: So the solution is to keep players tied up...


Dec 1, 2021, 5:56 AM

I keep hearing about “chemistry issues” with more college football and basketball teams this year. I don’t think any of the changes are good for team cohesion. It’s showing on the field and court at more schools I believe.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: So the solution is to keep players tied up...


Dec 1, 2021, 6:15 AM

With 18yo kids there is definitely going to be jealously no doubt about it and drastically boosted egos of the top 1% who are making big money. Coaches are going to have to find a way to work through it for sure

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Good points… Except #2…


Dec 1, 2021, 6:59 AM

Is the initial targeting rule about helmet to helmet contact ?

Either way, I don’t mind the rules that make the game safer ..

Go Tigers ??

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Good points… Except #2…


Dec 1, 2021, 7:11 AM

I don’t think targeting is the issue, the way officials seem to have no Idea what targeting is and how to call it is. It impacts the game way to much for a player who accidentally makes contact with the helmet. They need to train the refs more and change the rules for a clear accident to be a warning plus 15 yards and blatant targeting an ejection, also they have to call it both ways

2024 orange level member flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Unintended consequences and trickle down effects


Dec 1, 2021, 7:22 AM

are the issues I have. I'm okay with the concept of players getting a piece of the pie they create but don't like the way it's being done right now. Here's an interesting take as food for thought.

https://theconversation.com/when-the-ncaa-permitted-colleges-to-pay-stipends-to-student-athletes-the-colleges-also-raised-their-estimated-expenses-163854


badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Do you believe free markets enterprise


Dec 1, 2021, 8:13 AM

Do you believe free markets enterprise is the best way forward? Or is a socialist model more favorable to you?

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 17
| visibility 1
Archives - Tiger Boards Archive
add New Topic