Sankey responds to transfers

[Eastknox865]

I seldom side with league officials but I'm not sure I'm a fan of inter conference transfers that haven't received their degree from the member school who helped them get started. I don't want UT to basically become a JUCO who develops for 2 seasons and then ships them off to our rivals.

The only reason I believe it should be granted for everyone this year is because the year doesn't count towards eligibility

 

[PulaskiVolFan]

The only reason I believe it should be granted for everyone this year is because the year doesn't count towards eligibility

I agree but it still opens a pandoras box. Think how bad it's going to be next season as I believe the NCAA is dropping ACT test score requirements basically making everyone academically eligible. I'm curious as to how that impacts recruiting.

 

[HARTUPM]

Everyone knew it was a longshot from the beginning and one offensive lineman will not make or break our season.

You're downplaying it. Adding a 5 star guard/tackle (that has played significant snaps in the SEC) into the rotation would make a significant difference depth-wise. If the old injury bug bites us like it often does, having Cade (with his versatility) would be huge.

 

[volmanjr]

You're downplaying it. Adding a 5 star guard/tackle (that has played significant snaps in the SEC) into the rotation would make a significant difference depth-wise. If the old injury bug bites us like it often does, having Cade (with his versatility) would be huge.

not saying that having him wouldn't be great, just that life and this season will go on and bitchin' about it wont do us any good....next man up!

 

[ksgovols]

If the rule is that cut and dry, I'm not sure what a judge would do about it. Judges interpret the law, not write it.

Because ALL players are granted another year of eligibility because 2020 is not a 'cut and dry' season. It's no foul, no harm for everyone except the ones that want to transfer within conference in the SEC. How does that stand up in court? It's a year that doesn't matter to everyone except Cade Mays.

I think Sanky wants the rule to be challenged. He's not a dictator. He's operating under the rules the membership voted in. So, challenge the membership.

 

[PulaskiVolFan]

Because ALL players are granted another year of eligibility because 2020 is not a 'cut and dry' season. It's no foul, no harm for everyone except the ones that want to transfer within conference in the SEC. How does that stand up in court? It's a year that doesn't matter to everyone except Cade Mays.

I think Sanky wants the rule to be challenged. He's not a dictator. He's operating under the rules the membership voted in. So, challenge the membership.

Mays is not the only one, there are at least 2 more in the conference and there will be 20 more apply the 2nd they announce him eligible. Surely folks realize how many players will jump ship if allowed, how many of our 3rd string SOs would jump ship if they could? We would be sitting here with just 2 QBs if BM were allowed to up and go to LSU tomorrow.

 

[Eastknox865]

I agree but it still opens a pandoras box. Think how bad it's going to be next season as I believe the NCAA is dropping ACT test score requirements basically making everyone academically eligible. I'm curious as to how that impacts recruiting.

They opened pandoras box when they announced the year would not count towards eligibility

 

[PulaskiVolFan]

They opened pandoras box when they announced the year would not count towards eligibility

Yep. The day they let it happen though I believe you'll see 20 to as many as 50 guys across the conference jump ship for greener grass. I agree though, if academically eligible they all should be able to play this year on a 1 year waiver. If Gatewood at Ky gets ruled eligible next week after they play Auburn you might see Cade eligible after the GA game, it's a longshot but I could see them going that way.

 

[Buzzbait]

I agree but it still opens a pandoras box. Think how bad it's going to be next season as I believe the NCAA is dropping ACT test score requirements basically making everyone academically eligible. I'm curious as to how that impacts recruiting.

Even with NCAA dropping test score requirements, each school has its own entrance minimums and test scores are included in most cases.

 

[PulaskiVolFan]

Even with NCAA dropping test score requirements, each school has its own entrance minimums and test scores are included in most cases.

ACT hasn't had a test since March I believe, Universities have dropped ACT test requirements as well for next year.

 

[Eastknox865]

Yep. The day they let it happen though I believe you'll see 20 to as many as 50 guys across the conference jump ship for greener grass. I agree though, if academically eligible they all should be able to play this year on a 1 year waiver. If Gatewood at Ky gets ruled eligible next week after they play Auburn you might see Cade eligible after the GA game, it's a longshot but I could see them going that way.

All they have to do is say only the transfer to date are eligible because of covid19. That's a simple fix

 

[TNHopeful505]

@DeerPark12 do you have any insights into any of this? Your posts are always appreciated. Any hope you can give us?

 

[Buzzbait]

ACT hasn't had a test since March I believe, Universities have dropped ACT test requirements as well for next year.

That makes sense with COVID. I bet they start back up asap; too many hands reaching into the pot for the money generated by those tests.

 

[PulaskiVolFan]

@DeerPark12 do you have any insights into any of this? Your posts are always appreciated. Any hope you can give us?

I would like to hear his take on the academics part and what the requirements to get into school are as well.

 

[PulaskiVolFan]

Even with NCAA dropping test score requirements, each school has its own entrance minimums and test scores are included in most cases.

Talked to one of our student athletes today and he informed me that he just took the ACT at his school this past week so looks like they are starting testing back up for 1st time this year. That was in Tn so not sure about other states. Still think they go 1 year at least without ACT requirements.

 

[DeerPark12]

@DeerPark12 do you have any insights into any of this? Your posts are always appreciated. Any hope you can give us?

Let me break my thoughts into to parts:

Here's what I know: At the last two SEC Spring Meetings (2018 and 2019, I don't know to what extent it was discussed at the virtual meetings this year),Sankey brought up this and several other lesser-known rules that require a commissioner's ruling on a waiver or an appeal. He has been very vocal that the conference either has a rule or it has a suggestion. If something is a rule, then there need to be beyond extraordinary circumstances for there to be a waiver granted. That said, he has recommended changing the rule. There hasn't been support on changing the rule.

In fact, in 2018 when the NCAA changed the grad transfer rule and forbid conferences from restricting intra-conference grad transfers (the Brandon Kennedy rule) that was specifically targeting the SEC, Sankey recommended that they change the rule overall. His belief was that if the NCAA felt there was sufficient evidence to support an immediate eligibility waiver for a player, the conference shouldn't stand in the way. The vote was 13-1 to keep it.

I've heard some call Sankey a coward or worse for not "standing up to schools" and granting these waivers. I've heard him called a puppet over it. People that are saying those things don't seem to understand what the role of a commissioner is. He acts at the direction of the member schools and carries out the policies that those member schools establish. It's literally his job to do what a majority of schools want. He makes his recommendations before they set or change rules, but his job is to uphold whatever the schools decide. They've litigated this in their meetings over and over and the rule is still the rule.

Here's what I think: It hurts Cade that there are two other players applying for a waiver. He has a case that's tailor-made for the waiver. But to his left, he has a fellow Georgia starter that's claiming racism in Athens, inside and outside of the program, with little documented evidence of it. To his left, he has a QB that was beaten out and wants to go to a school where he can start. (Note - I'm NOT calling the other UGA player a liar, I've been to Athens and there's a pretty long list of minority students that have a beef with the Athens PD and have threatened legal action, but his appeal was light on supporting evidence, from what I've been told). You also have Georgia disputing the allegations in both players' appeals. They're not necessarily "blocking" the waiver requests, but they're not willing to admit that the incidents cited or true, because their attorneys feel doing so opens them up to legal liabilities.

Gatewood at UK shouldn't get one. Period. But is Sankey willing to leave him out and let the other two play? I HOPE I'm wrong, but I think he leaves all three ineligible and pushes again for the rule to be changed in the offseason. People at UT were very optimistic until the SEC hurdle presented itself. It was thought to be a rubber stamp.

I think the rule should be changed. I don't think it opens up a floodgate. Each school can still only take 25 new players a year. For a school to take a transfer, they have to believe that he's better than the potential of a high school player and is a better use of that initial counter spot. I saw someone earlier in the thread talk about Maurer and LSU. There's no chance that a school like LSU passes on a 4 or 5-star high school QB to give that spot to a guy that was uneven at best at UT and only has 2-3 years of eligibility. Obviously there will be some exceptions, but it's not going to be a flood. You saw something similar happen when the transfer portal first came around. A bunch of guys went in, thinking that schools would line up for them. Instead, you have a couple hundred kids that have no landing spot because schools don't have the room to take a flyer on a kid that wasn't able to hack it somewhere else.

Schools are nervous with the one-time transfer rule coming soon, but the market is going to end up regulating itself, it always does.

I would like to hear his take on the academics part and what the requirements to get into school are as well.

Every school sets their own academic entry standards for athletes. Some places are lower than others. Many places have a higher threshold than the NCAA minimum. Many others don't.

But the reason the NCAA is dropping the ACT/SAT requirement for this year is actually because the schools were already dropping it for normal students the next couple of years. That was causing the cancellation of entire ACT/SAT test sites in many places. You were looking at a scenario where the only people in a University's freshman class that had to take an ACT/SAT were athletes. That didn't make any sense, so the NCAA dropped the requirement for at least a year. Does that mean that some kids that wouldn't have gotten in some places now will get in? Probably. But you also have to consider that the last three years have seen record low numbers of non-qualifiers among students that sign an NLI at P5 schools.

 

[PulaskiVolFan]

Let me break my thoughts into to parts:

Here's what I know: At the last two SEC Spring Meetings (2018 and 2019, I don't know to what extent it was discussed at the virtual meetings this year),Sankey brought up this and several other lesser-known rules that require a commissioner's ruling on a waiver or an appeal. He has been very vocal that the conference either has a rule or it has a suggestion. If something is a rule, then there need to be beyond extraordinary circumstances for there to be a waiver granted. That said, he has recommended changing the rule. There hasn't been support on changing the rule.

In fact, in 2018 when the NCAA changed the grad transfer rule and forbid conferences from restricting intra-conference grad transfers (the Brandon Kennedy rule) that was specifically targeting the SEC, Sankey recommended that they change the rule overall. His belief was that if the NCAA felt there was sufficient evidence to support an immediate eligibility waiver for a player, the conference shouldn't stand in the way. The vote was 13-1 to keep it.

I've heard some call Sankey a coward or worse for not "standing up to schools" and granting these waivers. I've heard him called a puppet over it. People that are saying those things don't seem to understand what the role of a commissioner is. He acts at the direction of the member schools and carries out the policies that those member schools establish. It's literally his job to do what a majority of schools want. He makes his recommendations before they set or change rules, but his job is to uphold whatever the schools decide. They've litigated this in their meetings over and over and the rule is still the rule.

Here's what I think: It hurts Cade that there are two other players applying for a waiver. He has a case that's tailor-made for the waiver. But to his left, he has a fellow Georgia starter that's claiming racism in Athens, inside and outside of the program, with little documented evidence of it. To his left, he has a QB that was beaten out and wants to go to a school where he can start. (Note - I'm NOT calling the other UGA player a liar, I've been to Athens and there's a pretty long list of minority students that have a beef with the Athens PD and have threatened legal action, but his appeal was light on supporting evidence, from what I've been told). You also have Georgia disputing the allegations in both players' appeals. They're not necessarily "blocking" the waiver requests, but they're not willing to admit that the incidents cited or true, because their attorneys feel doing so opens them up to legal liabilities.

Gatewood at UK shouldn't get one. Period. But is Sankey willing to leave him out and let the other two play? I HOPE I'm wrong, but I think he leaves all three ineligible and pushes again for the rule to be changed in the offseason. People at UT were very optimistic until the SEC hurdle presented itself. It was thought to be a rubber stamp.

I think the rule should be changed. I don't think it opens up a floodgate. Each school can still only take 25 new players a year. For a school to take a transfer, they have to believe that he's better than the potential of a high school player and is a better use of that initial counter spot. I saw someone earlier in the thread talk about Maurer and LSU. There's no chance that a school like LSU passes on a 4 or 5-star high school QB to give that spot to a guy that was uneven at best at UT and only has 2-3 years of eligibility. Obviously there will be some exceptions, but it's not going to be a flood. You saw something similar happen when the transfer portal first came around. A bunch of guys went in, thinking that schools would line up for them. Instead, you have a couple hundred kids that have no landing spot because schools don't have the room to take a flyer on a kid that wasn't able to hack it somewhere else.

Schools are nervous with the one-time transfer rule coming soon, but the market is going to end up regulating itself, it always does.



Every school sets their own academic entry standards for athletes. Some places are lower than others. Many places have a higher threshold than the NCAA minimum. Many others don't.

But the reason the NCAA is dropping the ACT/SAT requirement for this year is actually because the schools were already dropping it for normal students the next couple of years. That was causing the cancellation of entire ACT/SAT test sites in many places. You were looking at a scenario where the only people in a University's freshman class that had to take an ACT/SAT were athletes. That didn't make any sense, so the NCAA dropped the requirement for at least a year. Does that mean that some kids that wouldn't have gotten in some places now will get in? Probably. But you also have to consider that the last three years have seen record low numbers of non-qualifiers among students that sign an NLI at P5 schools.

Thanks DP, extremely well written and I appreciate the time it took. I hadn't thought of the 25 yearly limit that would indeed put a stop on any so called "floodgates" that I thought might happen. I could still see maybe a star player playing in a smaller market might transfer to a better program if $ for players likeness and such takes place. What goes around always comes around but we'll survive as we've had some pretty good football players transfer in the past. One last question from me, how will other sports that just give partial athletic scholarships now find academic money for the athlete, will it be through independent university testing during the admittance process or will they base academic scholarships on strictly the students high school GPA and pre college work? Thanks again, always appreciate your input. I seem to remember a DP that posted some great info back in the day on the great Gridscape message board years ago.

 

[TNHopeful505]

Let me break my thoughts into to parts:

Here's what I know: At the last two SEC Spring Meetings (2018 and 2019, I don't know to what extent it was discussed at the virtual meetings this year),Sankey brought up this and several other lesser-known rules that require a commissioner's ruling on a waiver or an appeal. He has been very vocal that the conference either has a rule or it has a suggestion. If something is a rule, then there need to be beyond extraordinary circumstances for there to be a waiver granted. That said, he has recommended changing the rule. There hasn't been support on changing the rule.

In fact, in 2018 when the NCAA changed the grad transfer rule and forbid conferences from restricting intra-conference grad transfers (the Brandon Kennedy rule) that was specifically targeting the SEC, Sankey recommended that they change the rule overall. His belief was that if the NCAA felt there was sufficient evidence to support an immediate eligibility waiver for a player, the conference shouldn't stand in the way. The vote was 13-1 to keep it.

I've heard some call Sankey a coward or worse for not "standing up to schools" and granting these waivers. I've heard him called a puppet over it. People that are saying those things don't seem to understand what the role of a commissioner is. He acts at the direction of the member schools and carries out the policies that those member schools establish. It's literally his job to do what a majority of schools want. He makes his recommendations before they set or change rules, but his job is to uphold whatever the schools decide. They've litigated this in their meetings over and over and the rule is still the rule.

Here's what I think: It hurts Cade that there are two other players applying for a waiver. He has a case that's tailor-made for the waiver. But to his left, he has a fellow Georgia starter that's claiming racism in Athens, inside and outside of the program, with little documented evidence of it. To his left, he has a QB that was beaten out and wants to go to a school where he can start. (Note - I'm NOT calling the other UGA player a liar, I've been to Athens and there's a pretty long list of minority students that have a beef with the Athens PD and have threatened legal action, but his appeal was light on supporting evidence, from what I've been told). You also have Georgia disputing the allegations in both players' appeals. They're not necessarily "blocking" the waiver requests, but they're not willing to admit that the incidents cited or true, because their attorneys feel doing so opens them up to legal liabilities.

Gatewood at UK shouldn't get one. Period. But is Sankey willing to leave him out and let the other two play? I HOPE I'm wrong, but I think he leaves all three ineligible and pushes again for the rule to be changed in the offseason. People at UT were very optimistic until the SEC hurdle presented itself. It was thought to be a rubber stamp.

I think the rule should be changed. I don't think it opens up a floodgate. Each school can still only take 25 new players a year. For a school to take a transfer, they have to believe that he's better than the potential of a high school player and is a better use of that initial counter spot. I saw someone earlier in the thread talk about Maurer and LSU. There's no chance that a school like LSU passes on a 4 or 5-star high school QB to give that spot to a guy that was uneven at best at UT and only has 2-3 years of eligibility. Obviously there will be some exceptions, but it's not going to be a flood. You saw something similar happen when the transfer portal first came around. A bunch of guys went in, thinking that schools would line up for them. Instead, you have a couple hundred kids that have no landing spot because schools don't have the room to take a flyer on a kid that wasn't able to hack it somewhere else.

Schools are nervous with the one-time transfer rule coming soon, but the market is going to end up regulating itself, it always does.



Every school sets their own academic entry standards for athletes. Some places are lower than others. Many places have a higher threshold than the NCAA minimum. Many others don't.

But the reason the NCAA is dropping the ACT/SAT requirement for this year is actually because the schools were already dropping it for normal students the next couple of years. That was causing the cancellation of entire ACT/SAT test sites in many places. You were looking at a scenario where the only people in a University's freshman class that had to take an ACT/SAT were athletes. That didn't make any sense, so the NCAA dropped the requirement for at least a year. Does that mean that some kids that wouldn't have gotten in some places now will get in? Probably. But you also have to consider that the last three years have seen record low numbers of non-qualifiers among students that sign an NLI at P5 schools.

Thank you. That is solid info. Appreciate what you bring to this board.

 

[PulaskiVolFan]

Thank you. That is solid info. Appreciate what you bring to this board.

No kidding, we're lucky he tells us anything really after all the heat he's taken over time. I've always thought his info was spot on and honest opinion from someone truly on the inside.

 

[DeerPark12]

Thanks DP, extremely well written and I appreciate the time it took. I hadn't thought of the 25 yearly limit that would indeed put a stop on any so called "floodgates" that I thought might happen. I could still see maybe a star player playing in a smaller market might transfer to a better program if $ for players likeness and such takes place. What goes around always comes around but we'll survive as we've had some pretty good football players transfer in the past. One last question from me, how will other sports that just give partial athletic scholarships now find academic money for the athlete, will it be through independent university testing during the admittance process or will they base academic scholarships on strictly the students high school GPA and pre college work? Thanks again, always appreciate your input. I seem to remember a DP that posted some great info back in the day on the great Gridscape message board years ago.

Every school will be different on academic money, but many schools had already eliminated the SAT/ACT component of academic scholarships, converting them to "merit" scholarships that combine high school GPA, community service, activities, etc.

 

[Devo182]

Because ALL players are granted another year of eligibility because 2020 is not a 'cut and dry' season. It's no foul, no harm for everyone except the ones that want to transfer within conference in the SEC. How does that stand up in court? It's a year that doesn't matter to everyone except Cade Mays.

I think Sanky wants the rule to be challenged. He's not a dictator. He's operating under the rules the membership voted in. So, challenge the membership.

? Cade would not lose a year of eligibility either, regardless if he is allowed to play or not. And if they hadn't given everyone a "free year", this season would count against him regardless if he played or not. The 1 year residency rule has nothing to do with your eligibility clock.

It is like if he were asking for a waiver to get an exception for being academically ineligible...you are simply not allowed to play unless you get an exception. Granting everyone a free year would have nothing to do someone being academically ineligible. Same with the transfer residency requirement.

Seems there is a lot of conflating going on between being ineligible to play and a year counting against your 5 year clock. Not the same.

 

[Devo182]

Let me break my thoughts into to parts:

Here's what I know: At the last two SEC Spring Meetings (2018 and 2019, I don't know to what extent it was discussed at the virtual meetings this year),Sankey brought up this and several other lesser-known rules that require a commissioner's ruling on a waiver or an appeal. He has been very vocal that the conference either has a rule or it has a suggestion. If something is a rule, then there need to be beyond extraordinary circumstances for there to be a waiver granted. That said, he has recommended changing the rule. There hasn't been support on changing the rule.

In fact, in 2018 when the NCAA changed the grad transfer rule and forbid conferences from restricting intra-conference grad transfers (the Brandon Kennedy rule) that was specifically targeting the SEC, Sankey recommended that they change the rule overall. His belief was that if the NCAA felt there was sufficient evidence to support an immediate eligibility waiver for a player, the conference shouldn't stand in the way. The vote was 13-1 to keep it.

I've heard some call Sankey a coward or worse for not "standing up to schools" and granting these waivers. I've heard him called a puppet over it. People that are saying those things don't seem to understand what the role of a commissioner is. He acts at the direction of the member schools and carries out the policies that those member schools establish. It's literally his job to do what a majority of schools want. He makes his recommendations before they set or change rules, but his job is to uphold whatever the schools decide. They've litigated this in their meetings over and over and the rule is still the rule.

Here's what I think: It hurts Cade that there are two other players applying for a waiver. He has a case that's tailor-made for the waiver. But to his left, he has a fellow Georgia starter that's claiming racism in Athens, inside and outside of the program, with little documented evidence of it. To his left, he has a QB that was beaten out and wants to go to a school where he can start. (Note - I'm NOT calling the other UGA player a liar, I've been to Athens and there's a pretty long list of minority students that have a beef with the Athens PD and have threatened legal action, but his appeal was light on supporting evidence, from what I've been told). You also have Georgia disputing the allegations in both players' appeals. They're not necessarily "blocking" the waiver requests, but they're not willing to admit that the incidents cited or true, because their attorneys feel doing so opens them up to legal liabilities.

Gatewood at UK shouldn't get one. Period. But is Sankey willing to leave him out and let the other two play? I HOPE I'm wrong, but I think he leaves all three ineligible and pushes again for the rule to be changed in the offseason. People at UT were very optimistic until the SEC hurdle presented itself. It was thought to be a rubber stamp.

I think the rule should be changed. I don't think it opens up a floodgate. Each school can still only take 25 new players a year. For a school to take a transfer, they have to believe that he's better than the potential of a high school player and is a better use of that initial counter spot. I saw someone earlier in the thread talk about Maurer and LSU. There's no chance that a school like LSU passes on a 4 or 5-star high school QB to give that spot to a guy that was uneven at best at UT and only has 2-3 years of eligibility. Obviously there will be some exceptions, but it's not going to be a flood. You saw something similar happen when the transfer portal first came around. A bunch of guys went in, thinking that schools would line up for them. Instead, you have a couple hundred kids that have no landing spot because schools don't have the room to take a flyer on a kid that wasn't able to hack it somewhere else.

Schools are nervous with the one-time transfer rule coming soon, but the market is going to end up regulating itself, it always does.



Every school sets their own academic entry standards for athletes. Some places are lower than others. Many places have a higher threshold than the NCAA minimum. Many others don't.

But the reason the NCAA is dropping the ACT/SAT requirement for this year is actually because the schools were already dropping it for normal students the next couple of years. That was causing the cancellation of entire ACT/SAT test sites in many places. You were looking at a scenario where the only people in a University's freshman class that had to take an ACT/SAT were athletes. That didn't make any sense, so the NCAA dropped the requirement for at least a year. Does that mean that some kids that wouldn't have gotten in some places now will get in? Probably. But you also have to consider that the last three years have seen record low numbers of non-qualifiers among students that sign an NLI at P5 schools.

Great info DP. Would like to get your opinion on one thing:

One argument I've heard against the intraconference exception is schools are afraid there will be ongoing "rerecruiting". Since these schools tend to recruit a lot of the same kids and finish runner-up, some believe other schools will continue to recruit them (using backchannels or however, not officially ofc) once in school. Say a 5* from Atlanta lands at bama...is a little home sick or is having a rough first Fall and uga steps back in behind the curtains and tries to persuade him to come back home.

I think part of the nli and other rules are to ensure a kid is no longer is recruited and the transfer rules make it useless for another sec school to try and persuade them in any manner once enrolled. Might a 1 time exception affect that "protection" from rerecruiting SAs currently have? Do you think this is a legitimate concern of some?

 

[Eastknox865]

Well Mays didn't make the trip to South Carolina

 

[WRE3]

Sankey is probably snuggled up with Kirby in a hotel room somewhere tonight.

 

[DeerPark12]

Great info DP. Would like to get your opinion on one thing:

One argument I've heard against the intraconference exception is schools are afraid there will be ongoing "rerecruiting". Since these schools tend to recruit a lot of the same kids and finish runner-up, some believe other schools will continue to recruit them (using backchannels or however, not officially ofc) once in school. Say a 5* from Atlanta lands at bama...is a little home sick or is having a rough first Fall and uga steps back in behind the curtains and tries to persuade him to come back home.

I think part of the nli and other rules are to ensure a kid is no longer is recruited and the transfer rules make it useless for another sec school to try and persuade them in any manner once enrolled. Might a 1 time exception affect that "protection" from rerecruiting SAs currently have? Do you think this is a legitimate concern of some?

I do, and it happens all the time in the other NCAA sports that do not require a transfer to sit out a year, which is every sport other than football and men's and women's basketball.

I know of an example in one of those "other" sports where an assistant coach at a school forged a great relationship with the player's mom in the recruiting process. The kid signs with another school based on the desire to play early. The kid doesn't win the job they thought they would and ends up not playing much as a freshman. The assistant at the other school stays in contact with the mom and ends up being a sounding board for the mom's frustrations. At the end of the season, the family helps the kid decide to transfer and I'll give you one guess where the kid ended up.

There is a very easy way to stop it, and coaches in those other sports have been pushing for it for years to no avail. If you make the currently toothless tampering rules severe enough that it would cripple a coach that did it, then the problem would disappear. If you, say, lost five scholarships for every player you or your staff was found to have contacted, then the tampering problem goes away almost entirely.

There would always be ways around it, high school coaches, private trainers, etc., but if you penalize the most brazen severely, then the stuff around the edges is small enough that it doesn't really make a big difference in the overall picture.