Tulane QB Tanner Lee to Transfer to Nebraska

[Red Five]

People are way too obsessed about the 1 scholarship thing. Having a better backup QB is worth the scholarship.

not really...........he will be of no value for 2016.....and then maybe only a year after that...taking up space.

I think that it would be of value to have a scout team QB who has D1 starting experience.

 

[Waterloohusker26]

If I were POB, I'd be a little perturbed that they brought in another guy though...

Why? Competition brings out the best in everyone. MR and staff don't seem like the kind to guarantee a starting gig

 

[TGHusker]

I find it semi entertaining that many are not very excited by this pick up, given his timeline. But, if he could play this coming season......man, that would be really good news. Hopefully the talk of possibly getting him eligible for this year (doubtful) pans out.

The eligibility waiver is for an additional year in 2018. He is a tratitional transfer, so he is INELIGIBLE to play in 2016.

That's pretty much what I thought but a guy can hope, can't he?

What they needed to locate was a graduate, like Russell Wilson, that could come in and play immediately. Sorry, but I'm pretty down on the turnover machine that is TA. And really it's not his fault, but rather the guys that are calling the plays and putting him in situations that he doesn't excel at. I'd be perfectly content with TA in a different offense, with different play calling.

Agree - I was hoping MR would land a grad transfer or JUCO transfer - someone who could start in 2016 and not be a turnover machine. But, glad for them getting Lee for 2017 insurance.

I wonder about the NACM rule about sitting out one year even after a coaching change. It seems to me that the 'contract' got changed when the recruiting HC leaves - the player made the commitment to the coach and the system - as well as the school. I can understand a 1 year sit down if some one wants to leave because of lack of playing time, but when a coach leaves - that is a whole scale change. Of course that plays both ways - we could have lost our whole team when Bo left if there wasn't a 1 year transfer rule. Probably all in all, it is best to have the 1 year rule. I wonder under what considerations if any it could be appealed?

 

[cm husker]

Just about everyone of MR's first year QBs have been a "turnover machine"... even those that went on to have professional opportunities.

I think the 1 year transfer rule is completely unfair to athletes. It should either be repealed entirely or significantly amended.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Just about everyone of MR's first year QBs have been a "turnover machine"... even those that went on to have professional opportunities.

I think the 1 year transfer rule is completely unfair to athletes. It should either be repealed entirely or significantly amended.

I have mixed feelings on the 1-year transfer rule. It's unfair that the coaches can get up and leave any time, while the student athletes have to sit out a year if they want to change schools. However, I think it would lead to "free agent" players and coaches recruiting/tampering with guys that are on college rosters.

 

[cm husker]

Just about everyone of MR's first year QBs have been a "turnover machine"... even those that went on to have professional opportunities.

I think the 1 year transfer rule is completely unfair to athletes. It should either be repealed entirely or significantly amended.

I have mixed feelings on the 1-year transfer rule. It's unfair that the coaches can get up and leave any time, while the student athletes have to sit out a year if they want to change schools. However, I think it would lead to "free agent" players and coaches recruiting/tampering with guys that are on college rosters.

I sort of see your point about tampering, but I think that's somewhat overblown. It would be a serious corner case, imo, and not one that should be the basis of policy.

If compromising, I'd say:

1. If a player is granted a scholarship release, there should be no 1-year sit out rule. Full stop. This gets at a concern of mine that there are times when a coach approaches a kid and encourages him to seek other opportunities. That happens at all programs ever year (Riley alluded to it this year at NU). I don't have a problem with honest conversations. But, if a player is told that at say Ohio St, then he should absolutely be able to transfer to Ohio University without losing eligibility. He should even be able to transfer to another B10 school. The coach has made a decision and provided an outlook. The player's hands should not be tied in anyway when he acts on that information.

2. If a coach leaves (any position or coach who recruited a player or higher), then the player should have a one time option to transfer, without penalty, provided that he must exercise the right to transfer within 12 months.

3. If a coach refuses to grant a scholarship release (i.e., is allowing a kid to complete his education on scholarship), then a kid who wants to transfer at that point must sit out a year. This puts it on the coach to (a) assess if a kid is being improperly recruited/tampered with, and (b) really commit to a kid (i.e., not just keep him on the bench to prevent him from helping a potential competitor).

Overarching all of my thoughts on this is the really serious concern I have that all fo the NCAA restrictions on recruiting have put kids in a position where they are making vital decisions based on imperfect information. You ask a kid to make a 4 year commitment based on limited contact and one official visit. It's crazy to me that we should penalize him by making him sit out a year because he may have made a bad call as a 17 y/o with limited info.

There's also nothing wrong with encouraging coaches to "recruit their own roster" every year. Think about how that may have changed Mangino's and Leach's approaches to coaching (and/or weeded them out of HC'ing real early).

 

[VA Husker Fan]

Maybe coaches should have the same one year sit-out rule.

 

[GBRFAN]

People are way too obsessed about the 1 scholarship thing. Having a better backup QB is worth the scholarship.

not really...........he will be of no value for 2016.....and then maybe only a year after that...taking up space.

I think that it would be of value to have a scout team QB who has D1 starting experience.

This makes complete sense. Our staff is probably looking at the 2016 benefits as much as the 2017 benefits (and possible 2018)

 

[zoogs]

I don't understand the worry about sitting out one year. Every year a large part of the freshman recruiting class sits out. We often hope they do for their own benefit, so they can get acclimated and get a year's worth of work learning the system.

What's the difference?

And the people who don't see this as important for the 2017 competition have already anointed POB. Why? How has that worked out for past ballyhooed QB recruits? Why would putting all our eggs in essentially one basket be wise?

 

[cm husker]

I don't understand the worry about sitting out one year. Every year a large part of the freshman recruiting class sits out. We often hope they do for their own benefit, so they can get acclimated and get a year's worth of work learning the system.

What's the difference?

And the people who don't see this as important for the 2017 competition have already anointed POB. Why? How has that worked out for past ballyhooed QB recruits? Why would putting all our eggs in essentially one basket be wise?

Clearly losing a year of eligibility is not at all similar to redshirting.

 

[theknife]

Being we have zero indications at this point any of the current QBs on the roster will be game ready by 2017, it's not crazy to want to bridge the gap between the old regime and new. We seemed to recruit athlete first and QB second under Bo. This kid is pocket passer and unlike anyone on our roster less POB, who has some mobility. Add to the fact this kid has been sacked 42 times in 328 passing attempts, so that should be considered with his numbers.

I'm not saying he's a miracle to our team; however, it's certainly worth a scholarship. As we planned on taking two QBs in 2016 at one point and could whiff on our final prospects.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

I don't understand the worry about sitting out one year. Every year a large part of the freshman recruiting class sits out. We often hope they do for their own benefit, so they can get acclimated and get a year's worth of work learning the system.

What's the difference?

And the people who don't see this as important for the 2017 competition have already anointed POB. Why? How has that worked out for past ballyhooed QB recruits? Why would putting all our eggs in essentially one basket be wise?

Clearly losing a year of eligibility is not at all similar to redshirting.

Actually, I think it's very similar. The guy spends a year with the team, attending class, getting accustomed to the school and city, going through practices, weight lifting, team meetings, scout team, and then not playing on Saturdays. If Lee had a redshirt year available, he would essentially be a redshirt in 2016.

 

[theknife]

Also TE is a huge concern for 2017. Bush is already 6'3 220, so if he is willing, hybrid TE/WR might be a hell of a role.

 

[cm husker]

I don't understand the worry about sitting out one year. Every year a large part of the freshman recruiting class sits out. We often hope they do for their own benefit, so they can get acclimated and get a year's worth of work learning the system.

What's the difference?

And the people who don't see this as important for the 2017 competition have already anointed POB. Why? How has that worked out for past ballyhooed QB recruits? Why would putting all our eggs in essentially one basket be wise?

Clearly losing a year of eligibility is not at all similar to redshirting.

Actually, I think it's very similar. The guy spends a year with the team, going through practices, weight lifting, team meetings, scout team, and then not playing on Saturdays. If Lee had a redshirt year available, he would essentially be a redshirt in 2016.

It's similar in some ways, but in the most important way, it's not: redshirting doesn't cost you a year of playing time like transferring does.

Now, if people want to require a sit out year without a loss of eligibility, that might be different. But even then, what's the point of the restriction?

 

[ColoradoHusk]

I don't understand the worry about sitting out one year. Every year a large part of the freshman recruiting class sits out. We often hope they do for their own benefit, so they can get acclimated and get a year's worth of work learning the system.

What's the difference?

And the people who don't see this as important for the 2017 competition have already anointed POB. Why? How has that worked out for past ballyhooed QB recruits? Why would putting all our eggs in essentially one basket be wise?

Clearly losing a year of eligibility is not at all similar to redshirting.

Actually, I think it's very similar. The guy spends a year with the team, going through practices, weight lifting, team meetings, scout team, and then not playing on Saturdays. If Lee had a redshirt year available, he would essentially be a redshirt in 2016.

It's similar in some ways, but in the most important way, it's not: redshirting doesn't cost you a year of playing time like transferring does.

Now, if people want to require a sit out year without a loss of eligibility, that might be different. But even then, what's the point of the restriction?

I would say the redshirt year and transfer year are more similar than not. Yes, the transfer year costs a year of eligibility.