Thread Rating:
12-18-2024, 03:38 PM
I'm not sure about the transfer portal being opened up, before a teams season is over.
I'm a big Marshall football fan. They had to opt out of their bowl game. They had so many guys hitting the transfer portal, that it'd be tough for them to field a team for their bowl game.
Last night, I watched the bowl game between WVU and Memphis. There was guys who had hit the portal from both of these teams. I can't remember what team it was, but the rb was gassed. He couldn't come out of the game, because his backup had entered the portal.
Even teams that are in the playoffs, have guys that have entered the portal.
Personally I don't think the portal should be opened, until a teams season is over. Or maybe not open the portal for everyone, until a day or two after the National Championship game.
As a player and team you work to put yourself into position, to make a bowl game, or the playoffs. Even the lesser bowl games, you get some pretty sweet swag for playing in. In some of the lesser bowls, I've heard of guys getting rings for winning the game. Idk but if I was a player, I'd want to be a part of it. I mean you've worked all year, that's your reward. Just don't understand leaving before it's over.
I guess NIL plays a part in this. I guess many want to go where they'll get paid the best.
What do you think about guys hitting the transfer portal before their bowl game? Or the playoffs are over? Should the date to hit the portal be pushed back, until the season is over?
I'm a big Marshall football fan. They had to opt out of their bowl game. They had so many guys hitting the transfer portal, that it'd be tough for them to field a team for their bowl game.
Last night, I watched the bowl game between WVU and Memphis. There was guys who had hit the portal from both of these teams. I can't remember what team it was, but the rb was gassed. He couldn't come out of the game, because his backup had entered the portal.
Even teams that are in the playoffs, have guys that have entered the portal.
Personally I don't think the portal should be opened, until a teams season is over. Or maybe not open the portal for everyone, until a day or two after the National Championship game.
As a player and team you work to put yourself into position, to make a bowl game, or the playoffs. Even the lesser bowl games, you get some pretty sweet swag for playing in. In some of the lesser bowls, I've heard of guys getting rings for winning the game. Idk but if I was a player, I'd want to be a part of it. I mean you've worked all year, that's your reward. Just don't understand leaving before it's over.
I guess NIL plays a part in this. I guess many want to go where they'll get paid the best.
What do you think about guys hitting the transfer portal before their bowl game? Or the playoffs are over? Should the date to hit the portal be pushed back, until the season is over?
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
12-18-2024, 06:38 PM
portal has to open after December finals, some school start back right after jan 1.
only way to change it is to change the schools academic calendar, aint happening.
only way to change it is to change the schools academic calendar, aint happening.
12-18-2024, 07:33 PM
(12-18-2024, 06:38 PM)plantmanky Wrote: portal has to open after December finals, some school start back right after jan 1.I hadn't thought about guys trying to get to their new schools, before the Spring semester starts in January.
only way to change it is to change the schools academic calendar, aint happening.
Good point
You got some guys starting college in August during Fall Semester. Other's start in January. Idk guess it also depends on what semester someone enrolls in. Then idk if they have to get a full year, two semesters of school work in, before they can transfer. Or if they can transfer after just one semester.
I don't understand much about how this is set up to work lol
12-18-2024, 11:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-18-2024, 11:22 PM by Cactus Jack.)
I'd like to more of the nitty-gritty on whether NIL deals can include clauses that essentially require playing in bowl games, or at least participating in bowl activities.
If I'm a big donor to a school NIL program or an individual athlete's NIL sponsor, I'm wanting to get all I can from the deal. If I'm the owner of Outback Steakhouse and UK arguably jumps Georgia in the bowl pecking order to get to my home base in Tampa, I want to watch Couch, Yeast, and Johnson on the field from my box.
If I'm a school playing in a bowl, I want to field a competitive roster and get a win, but I might worry about somehow cannibalizing next year's success by doing so. Same thing, though maybe to a lesser extent, if I were an athletic director or coach. If Kentucky went to the Liberty Bowl to play Central Florida this year, you can probably see wisdom in Stoops starting Boley over Wimsatt or Vandagriff, even if I might stand a greater chance of losing.
If I'm a bowl sponsor or the city hosting the bowl game, I obviously want to do whatever is needed to protect my investment and make as much money as possible-- if that means that Ewers opts out and Manning starts but I still draw higher ratings and get a bigger gate, then you take it, but a Ewers/Manning type of scenario isn't really what we're talking about here.
If I'm a fan who has saved up or used funds that I could have spent on something else on a trip to my alma mater's bowl game, you can bet I'm going to be pissed if invest in a hotel, plane ticket, and game ticket only to see the back-ups get blown out or muck it up against a ragtag opponent.
From a cursory glance, I'm getting mixed messages on whether you can actually include clauses that incentivize playing in a bowl game or if this runs afoul of existing rules. Seeing some commentary saying that "pay to play" is disincentivized, if not illegal. Also seeing that Snoop Dogg is offering additional NIL opportunities associated with his bowl.
Considering all of the above, even if it isn't in place yet or hasn't been tested by the courts, think that there are too many stakeholders in bowl games for there not to be a shift toward directly incentivizing participation.
This might not move the needle for the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl or Independence Bowl, but there are already tons of bowl games (with more meaningful games being added with an expanded playoff) and contraction of some of the smaller ones may not be the worst thing.
If I'm a big donor to a school NIL program or an individual athlete's NIL sponsor, I'm wanting to get all I can from the deal. If I'm the owner of Outback Steakhouse and UK arguably jumps Georgia in the bowl pecking order to get to my home base in Tampa, I want to watch Couch, Yeast, and Johnson on the field from my box.
If I'm a school playing in a bowl, I want to field a competitive roster and get a win, but I might worry about somehow cannibalizing next year's success by doing so. Same thing, though maybe to a lesser extent, if I were an athletic director or coach. If Kentucky went to the Liberty Bowl to play Central Florida this year, you can probably see wisdom in Stoops starting Boley over Wimsatt or Vandagriff, even if I might stand a greater chance of losing.
If I'm a bowl sponsor or the city hosting the bowl game, I obviously want to do whatever is needed to protect my investment and make as much money as possible-- if that means that Ewers opts out and Manning starts but I still draw higher ratings and get a bigger gate, then you take it, but a Ewers/Manning type of scenario isn't really what we're talking about here.
If I'm a fan who has saved up or used funds that I could have spent on something else on a trip to my alma mater's bowl game, you can bet I'm going to be pissed if invest in a hotel, plane ticket, and game ticket only to see the back-ups get blown out or muck it up against a ragtag opponent.
From a cursory glance, I'm getting mixed messages on whether you can actually include clauses that incentivize playing in a bowl game or if this runs afoul of existing rules. Seeing some commentary saying that "pay to play" is disincentivized, if not illegal. Also seeing that Snoop Dogg is offering additional NIL opportunities associated with his bowl.
Considering all of the above, even if it isn't in place yet or hasn't been tested by the courts, think that there are too many stakeholders in bowl games for there not to be a shift toward directly incentivizing participation.
This might not move the needle for the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl or Independence Bowl, but there are already tons of bowl games (with more meaningful games being added with an expanded playoff) and contraction of some of the smaller ones may not be the worst thing.
Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)
