We can debate who opened the floodgates fully (I'd argue Russell Wilson turned the control wheel one full turn, then Kelly Bryant...), but there's no debating that they are, in fact, open.

If you are a coach, you must now face the reality that if you have a star QB in waiting, he cannot be kept waiting longer than a year or two before he decides to transfer, and he might not be willing to do a four-game redshirt because he fears injury. And if you demote a starter, he's guaranteed to transfer if he has eligibility remaining. This is going to trickle down to other positions as well.

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. I've long argued that it's an equity issue: if coaches can move, so should players, and if non-athletes on scholarships can move, so can athletes. Let's not pretend this is anything other than it is: a business.

So as a coach, how do you adjust your long-term recruiting strategy? If you see a recruit who can go pro in 2-3 years, but already have someone in that slot with a year or two of eligibility left, do you still go for him, knowing that you could end up losing one or both of them? Do you try to find "someone who's good, but will not really bust out until senior year so I can keep him around?"

(Tangent: if you think it's a problem, I have a better solution: reduce scholarships to 15/yr for all FBS programs. Talent more spread out means more starters. Plus, fewer scholarships means fewer opportunities to move.)

Or you use the transfer market to supplement if your qb goes pro

It'll all come out in the wash

It becomes part of the recruiting mix...

Its not even star qbs. Nearly all the underclassmen transfers are average or a little better than average back ups who think they have a better shot elsewhere.

No longer will teams will be able to hold onto two qbs who are the same age.

my wife says she wants a transfer

Agree with the premise, but Wilson & Starkel aren't really examples of:

Quote:

---

If you are a coach, you must now face the reality that if you have a star QB in waiting, he cannot be kept waiting longer than a year or two before he decides to transfer

---

OldCorpsTerd86 said:

---

my wife says she wants a transfer

---

I firmly believe there should be a no-fault opt-out clause after say, 10 years of marriage. There is no penalty if you then proceed to a second wife within five years of your age, but a fine is incurred if you move down 5-10 years, a larger fine 10-15 years younger and so on. And of course there is a fine if you split before the 10 years. The details could be cleaned up in a finely tuned piece of legislation.

We all only have one life and a narrow window in it to do certain things. Do no harm to others, but love with no regrets.

"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined."

So Starkel is a "star QB"? Gee...I guess our so-called QB whisperer coach whiffed on that one!

Hey nothing but the best to the young man...but sometimes the best QB really IS the one that is starting every game!

I'm assuming OP is including starkel in the starter being demoted category, not star qb in waiting.

I think the piece that the OP missed is that no amount of patience on Starkel's part produces an opportunity to be the starter as he is a year older than Mond. QBs that are younger than the starter may still wait for their opportunity. I don't think Starkel is being impatient but rather realistic.

Bob Harris said:

---

OldCorpsTerd86 said:

---

my wife says she wants a transfer

---

I firmly believe there should be a no-fault opt-out clause after say, 10 years of marriage. There is no penalty if you then proceed to a second wife within five years of your age, but a fine is incurred if you move down 5-10 years, a larger fine 10-15 years younger and so on. And of course there is a fine if you split before the 10 years. The details could be cleaned up in a finely tuned piece of legislation.

---

Children = Details

man,,, Sumlin really screwed up the qb situation!!!!!

Nice monologue. Yes: there was never any reason why the school gains control over the athlete in exchange for a one-year job parading as "ejumucation."

And yes now that loyalty isn't enforced by dumb, controlling, arcane rules coaches and schools will spend more to retain their services given the transfer portal is essentially a free, open market.

I don't know that it changes recruiting a ton. You're an idiot as a coach if you don't recruit a qb each year. You just now could potentially go the transfer route if one doesnt pan out.

QB's transferring is nothing new, they're just higher profile back ups going to name schools instead of smaller schools like they had been doing in the past.

I don't think it becomes a major issue at other positions because every other position rotates enough to get you pt. It'll happen, just not as much.

OldCorpsTerd86 said:

---

my wife says she wants a transfer

---

she's obviously not satisfied with playing time...

I don't think it is a really new dynamic. It has been going on since the 1980s.

Troy Aikman bolted OU as he didn't want to be an option QB and thought Switzer was an Ahole. He went on to win the Davey O'Brien and be taken #1 overall. Tons of guys did this prior to Wilson - Nick Foles, Scott Frost, etc.

Coaches are always absolve of blame for hoarding players they can't start and selling them on systems they have no plans to implement. Players wise up and go where it is better for them.

I am not saying this is a Jimbo thing. Jimbo seemed hell-bent on Mond from day one for his own reasons and it worked out generally well.

Quote:

---

This is going to trickle down to other positions as well.

---

I enjoyed reading but mostly disagree on this point. With QBs, there can only be one. Most coaches will find a way to get multiple good RBs, multiple TEs, etc involved in the game.

The (non-juco) transfers at other positions will tend to be:

1. Attitude problems;
2. Grad transfers;
3. Buried on the depth chart; and/or
4. Successful players at smaller/unsuccessful programs wanting their chance


I think the new paradigm will be coaches emphasizing graduating in 3 years (unless they declare early).

Quote:

---

So as a coach, how do you adjust your long-term recruiting strategy? If you see a recruit who can go pro in 2-3 years, but already have someone in that slot with a year or two of eligibility left, do you still go for him, knowing that you could end up losing one or both of them? Do you try to find "someone who's good, but will not really bust out until senior year so I can keep him around?"

---

This is the question.

1. Expect to have 3 scholy QBs on the roster, maybe 4 if starter is a Sr.
1a. Expect to have 1 walk-on you might actually play

2. Avoid starting a true fish unless TF is clearly better.

Starting a TF means that everyone else leaves the minute the announcement is made, unless they are close to graduating. It also means recruiting a QB will be difficult the following year (unless you are Clemson/Bama good)

They cleared out at Bama when Hurts was named the starter. Same w/ Josh Rosen at UCLA. Rosen got hurt his soph year. The backup was terrible and they struggled.

3. Only recruit 1 HS QB/year
3a. Make sure the HSQB understands that he will compete, but only get the job if clearly better
3b. Make sure the HSQB understands there will be 3 scholy QBs min on the roster, thus transfers

4. Always have at least 3 scholy QBs on the roster and get transfers if necessary to make those #s

5. Don't be Sumlin. Be honest with the QBs and only recruit the ones who accept your methods.

I think it is good thing, the grad transfer role. It encourages athletes to get a degree so they can control their own future. It also give some autonomy to the "student athlete".

50% of QBs transfer now.

I'm guessing she wants to go to a "bigger" program.

I think we firmly set the paradigm by having two 5 star qb's transfer within 5 days of each other... odd part is the starter left

Bison said:

---

We can debate who opened the floodgates fully (I'd argue Russell Wilson turned the control wheel one full turn, then Kelly Bryant...), but there's no debating that they are, in fact, open.

If you are a coach, you must now face the reality that if you have a star QB in waiting, he cannot be kept waiting longer than a year or two before he decides to transfer, and he might not be willing to do a four-game redshirt because he fears injury. And if you demote a starter, he's guaranteed to transfer if he has eligibility remaining. This is going to trickle down to other positions as well.

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. I've long argued that it's an equity issue: if coaches can move, so should players, and if non-athletes on scholarships can move, so can athletes. Let's not pretend this is anything other than it is: a business.

So as a coach, how do you adjust your long-term recruiting strategy? If you see a recruit who can go pro in 2-3 years, but already have someone in that slot with a year or two of eligibility left, do you still go for him, knowing that you could end up losing one or both of them? Do you try to find "someone who's good, but will not really bust out until senior year so I can keep him around?"

(Tangent: if you think it's a problem, I have a better solution: reduce scholarships to 15/yr for all FBS programs. Talent more spread out means more starters. Plus, fewer scholarships means fewer opportunities to move.)

---

No if Tathan gets a waiver then your problem rings true ..... hating on a kid for grad transferring is bad bull. Guess you hate Trevor Knight grad transferring here or Trevor Wood last year?

Bison said:

---

We can debate who opened the floodgates fully (I'd argue Russell Wilson turned the control wheel one full turn, then Kelly Bryant...), but there's no debating that they are, in fact, open.

If you are a coach, you must now face the reality that if you have a star QB in waiting, he cannot be kept waiting longer than a year or two before he decides to transfer, and he might not be willing to do a four-game redshirt because he fears injury. And if you demote a starter, he's guaranteed to transfer if he has eligibility remaining. This is going to trickle down to other positions as well.

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. I've long argued that it's an equity issue: if coaches can move, so should players, and if non-athletes on scholarships can move, so can athletes. Let's not pretend this is anything other than it is: a business.

So as a coach, how do you adjust your long-term recruiting strategy? If you see a recruit who can go pro in 2-3 years, but already have someone in that slot with a year or two of eligibility left, do you still go for him, knowing that you could end up losing one or both of them? Do you try to find "someone who's good, but will not really bust out until senior year so I can keep him around?"

(Tangent: if you think it's a problem, I have a better solution: reduce scholarships to 15/yr for all FBS programs. Talent more spread out means more starters. Plus, fewer scholarships means fewer opportunities to move.)

---

Considering most people outside of Aggieland have never heard of Starkel it's a small sign outside of College Station.

Nick really seems like a good guy and pretty much everyone on here wishes him well (Which is saying something) and hopes he leads another big time football program (Many on here probably think he should be leading ours), but it's really a crap shoot and will be difficult task for him wherever he lands. There is a thread here that has him as the instant starter on like 10 big time P5 teams. Having said that I would not count him out.

OldCorpsTerd86 said:

---

my wife says she wants a transfer

---

we know...

Rule 1!

OldCorpsTerd86 said:

---

my wife says she wants a transfer

---

What was her star rating coming out of high school?

hph6203 said:

---

OldCorpsTerd86 said:

---

my wife says she wants a transfer

---

What was her star rating coming out of high school?

---

Would she be willing to try additional positions? I could possibly find and fill an existing opening.

Virginia tech is having so many transfers their coach had to put out a statement:

Amazing. But they have very little choice than to unindenture the indentured servants.

technoviking said:

---

Virginia tech is having so many transfers their coach had to put out a statement:

---

That thread is savage. I didn't realize that Virginia Tech was having those problems.

BigOil said:

---

It becomes part of the recruiting mix...

---

In other words, just more players for Coach Fisher and the entire coaching staff (plus support staff) to keep an eye on.

Transfer Portal just means additional workload and "recruiting".

technoviking said:

---

Virginia tech is having so many transfers their coach had to put out a statement:

---

TL. DNR.