[Cactus Jack]

Dabo was recently on ESPN airing more grievances with the transfer portal.

Not to say that there isn't some legitimacy to what he's saying-- there are some shenanigans that need reigned in and the transfer windows need modified. I don't know that the majority of coaches and fans aren't in agreement with plenty of his points.

I can't say that I currently see the need for a cap on values; if nothing else, it just seems like something that will be circumvented one way or another. That aside, all results and statistics to date seem to show that Swinney is behind the times on both NIL and the portal. 

He's one of the least active coaches in the portal and the results just haven't been there. I get that there's pressure from his boosters, alumni, and fans to embrace, or at least take a more active role there, but it seems that there's some validity to their points.

Not that we should be ready to pronounce him dead (he made the CFP last season) but with the college football landscape shifting in such a way that schools like Clemson need to make some adjustments, is Dabo screaming into the void or does it even matter if he isn't willing to adapt to the times and make changes? 

Personally, I see a shift where conferences are consolidating power and there seem to be a number of teams ahead of Clemson when it comes to candidates for expansion (North Carolina, Florida State, Miami, and Virginia). That, along with others who offer something similar (NC State [market], Virginia Tech [market & some tradition], Georgia Tech [market, academics, & some tradition], SMU [academics, market & more money], and Duke [academics, market & more money]), it seems like Dabo is fighting a losing battle unless his end-game is to see Clemson become a Boise State-type mid-major.

[Spud]

As a Clemson fan since Tahj Boyd and Sammy Watkins days. I've always loved Dabo but he's become difficult to listen to in the media with how he talks about the new CFB landscape with the NIL and transfer portal. To me, this is the way it is now. So he's either going to have to embrace it or retire like Saban did. He's had a great career and could retire off into the sunset at a young age or be the old head that screams at kids riding dirt bikes down the street while complaining that kids now days are soft at the same time.

ESPN has Clemson as the #2 ranked team in the way too early polls and I look for us not to be as great as they are advertising us because I've just never been a Cade Klubnik fan. I think he's a great QB and love his toughness and ability to battle but I don't think we win a natty with him at QB unless he just have Joe Burrow LSU 2019 caliber receivers around him. He puts me in the frame of mind of Derek Carr

[King Kong]

In all honesty I kinda hate what college sports have become.  Can't blame the kids for wanting to get paid.  Heck I would have wanted that to.  I remember the day when a kid got a scholarship offer and was at said school, for four years until graduation.  Unless they were good enough to go pro they they left early.  Now you don't gotta go pro to get paid.  Go to where the money is.  Now we got kids playing for three or four different schools until they graduate.  Some of these college kids are making more money than some of the pros. 

But it is what it is though.  Times have changed, guess we gotta deal with it and move on the best we can.  As is the case with the Clemson coach.  I'm glad Spud mentioned Saban.  Because the legendary coach was the first thing I thought of when I seen this thread.

[Cactus Jack]

Saban and Dabo are entirely different examples to me. Saban was far older, had way more success (you could argue he had LSU at or near Clemson), and was nearing retirement, but he still evolved and adapted better than Dabo.

[King Kong]

I thought of Saban because of the way he's spoken out against these changes in the past.  Saban was likely nearing retirement age regardless of NIL.  And he really did have LSU built up before his move to Alabama.  So CJ, I pretty much agree with the points you made.

Saban is like the godfather of college football    Of all the remaining and active college coaches, there's very few if any Swinney takes a definite back seat to.  In terms of accomplishments.  Maybe the Georgia coach but that's about all I can think of, off the top of my head.  The Georgia coach has done a good job adapting to the NIL era.  We'll see how Swinney adjusts.  

I know it's been mentioned but Clemson did make the playoffs last year.  Things could be a lot worse for them.  Maybe Swinney has something going after all.  

[Westside]

I was never a Clemson fan and really couldn't tolerate them since back in the day when they threatened Georgetown College with a lawsuit if they didn't change their helmets.  I have never really cared for Dabo either.   As stated before me, I really don't like what the NIL and transfer portal have don't to college athletics.  Take me back....

[sl202952]

In all honesty I kinda hate what college sports have become.  Can't blame the kids for wanting to get paid.  Heck I would have wanted that to.  I remember the day when a kid got a scholarship offer and was at said school, for four years until graduation.  Unless they were good enough to go pro they they left early.  Now you don't gotta go pro to get paid.  Go to where the money is.  Now we got kids playing for three or four different schools until they graduate.  Some of these college kids are making more money than some of the pros. 

But it is what it is though.  Times have changed, guess we gotta deal with it and move on the best we can.  As is the case with the Clemson coach.  I'm glad Spud mentioned Saban.  Because the legendary coach was the first thing I thought of when I seen this thread.

I agree. We all know players have been getting paid under the table for years, but once it became legal, I had a feeling it would hurt the college game. I always respected the stance the late Mike Lech took. If players want to be treated like professionals, then they should be subject to things like trades and contracts. Or at least I think that was how he looked at it. 

But honestly, the impact is already reaching down into high school sports outside of Kentucky. I watched a few clips from a podcast out of Florida, and if I remember correctly, the host mentioned that some kids there have played for as many as four different high schools in the same year. Don't quote me on the details, but I think he said one player's team got knocked out of the playoffs, and then that kid transferred to another school that was still in and was immediately to play. That just seems crazy to me.

[Cactus Jack]

I think the pendulum is going to swing back on NIL and transfer portal. Don't see either being eliminated entirely, but think we see some changes that limit the amount of times a player can effectively transfer and play at and be paid by any other school "just because".

Most likely, I think we're going to see (more) modifications to the windows that players can enter the portal, get evaluated, and sign. Also seems pretty likely that we see stricter requirements for the number of years that a player has to compete (e.g., a standard “five years to compete in four seasons” absent qualifying for a medical redshirt, graduating, or getting some type of waiver) and reverting back to standard penalties for transfer (e.g., one free transfer then you sit out a year after the second unless [your previous school’s coach left, you are entering a different division, your previous school grants a waiver, etc.).

I don’t like the term "non-compete"**, but I could see some conferences getting their members on board with some type of agreement that effectively imposes tiers or penalties based on where a player later tries to transfer to [against the former school/conference’s wishes]. Depending on their circumstances, there’s incentive for schools to seek different types of compensation if a player were to transfer within the conference, to an SEC/Big Ten school, to “non-2” power conference school, etc. From the SEC to the MAC, I'd think this would apply to schools and conferences across the FBS, but implementation probably depends on having the major player's weight behind it. Would think that for it to be effective, they’d have to carve out some exceptions for transferring back to a school within certain parameters as well (e.g., trying to block a transfer from a more expensive, far-away out-of-state school to a less expensive, in-state school was one of the images that got pounded when trying to loosen restrictions on transfers under the previous models).

Could also see bigger schools want to implement multi-year contracts for some players, but would think that all of the programs with lots of money and influence are going to be reluctant to do that right now given how much they benefit from the system as is. As of now, it makes the most sense to try to extend if it's a really good player who might not be ready to play right away, which is a bit contradictory in and of itself. You can see why Texas would want to lock in a freshman Arch Manning since he needs time to develop and you don't want to develop him for someone else, but most players aren’t top 100 recruits and most positions still see the field (special teams, as a back-up playing some meaningful snaps, or in select packages). The problem with multi-year options is that the schools have so much leverage over the player’s education (best example for how this goes wrong: a school essentially being in control of what credits may transfer and leaving the academic path of a player they no longer want in flux).

Multi-years would also get tricky if you are a school that may be looking to move on from their current coach in the near future. Those tides can shift quickly (e.g., Alabama now versus four years ago, points in Ohio State or Notre Dame’s seasons last year, etc.).

It won’t happen, but we could see change if all of the schools with the least bargaining power would stand together and insist on locking all of their meaningful players were into multi-year options and/or deals with huge buyouts to prevent (or at least get heavily compensated for) a school like Buffalo losing a Khalil Mack. It isn't as if the players going to those schools have tons of leverage at the time they're signing. Again, won’t happen, but if it did, the have-nots could at least get something more than “come to us and you might develop to the point that someone else will buy you away and leave us with nothing in return other than the promise we sell the next recruit”.



** I don’t like “non-compete” because they are largely disfavored and unenforceable, with those that are enforceable being fairly complex. It isn’t something that’s intended to keep the regional manager for Pizza Hut from going to Papa John’s or the mid-level engineer at Apple from going to Microsoft. But absent an NFL-like CBA, I could see some arguments (even if they aren’t winners) for a school like Texas to add a short (think ~30 days, or enough time to miss some practices [but no class]), well compensated (~$500K-$1 million) non-compete clause to Arch Manning’s deal should he transfer to select schools. This hypo probably works best if it were to a school that is a recurring [and pivotal] game on upcoming schedules and for a player like a QB who would have intimate knowledge of schemes/game plans. Again, I’m not saying it’s a winning argument, but I also wouldn’t be shocked to see someone try it, or for it to at least be a footnote in some type of collective reform.

I could also see buyout/non-compete arguments coming from NIL sponsors whose returns on investment are very dependent on “brand-loyal” customers and greatly diminished by transfer. How interesting would it be to have a booster lay out the numbers when an Alabama car dealership’s investment is scorched the moment a former “ambassador” goes to LSU or Tennessee? Maybe it wouldn’t prevent the transfer, but it could have an effect on the amount of NIL money that a player is able to get at their new program (or at least in how the new school has to try to structure it).