forums

Transfer portal watch thread!! (Versions 1.0 - 4.0 merged)

Advertisement
JD08 said:
The specificity is the problem.
Click to expand...
And an insider posting a thread as soon as said player declares for the portal isn't specificity. Look, I like the info. It's great. But if you're going to rule with an iron fist due to potential violations, enforce it across the board. Otherwise it looks like selective sensoring disguised as in the interest of the university.

I'm more on the side of no moderating, cause you could simply say the insiders or posters are just guessing and have plausible deniability
 
RVACane said:
If our coaches were involved directly with those players then yes but that isn’t the case here. Players have friends on other teams who they talk to. They have others who they talk to. Those people may or may not - on their own - gauge interest.
Click to expand...
Understood. But at face value, it looks no different than a poster guessing and being correct. Just saying.
 
Advertisement
ristwasdown said:
And an insider posting a thread as soon as said player declares for the portal isn't specificity. Look, I like the info. It's great. But if you're going to rule with an iron fist due to potential violations, enforce it across the board. Otherwise it looks like selective sensoring disguised as in the interest of the university.

I'm more on the side of no moderating, cause you could simply say the insiders or posters are just guessing and have plausible deniability
Click to expand...

I think the distinction is more valid when one considers the increased possibility of information getting back to the staff wherever said player currently plays. If those staffs find out too soon, they may have a better chance of deploying strategies to keep the recruit and/or involve the NCAA. If those same staffs learn about a transfer in real time (with no lead time) then certain strategies/countermeasures may not be available to them or be as effective.
 
Let the mods enforce what rules they want/need to enforce. It's their site. Chances are if they are doing it, there is a specific reason or have been asked to. How hard is this?

We are getting free info that has consistently been more reliable than subscription sites because the guy wants us to be excited as fans. Why actively try to ruin this? If you don't like it or believe it, either hit ignore or pay 247 to post the same information for you a couple days later.
 
Advertisement
ristwasdown said:
And an insider posting a thread as soon as said player declares for the portal isn't specificity. Look, I like the info. It's great. But if you're going to rule with an iron fist due to potential violations, enforce it across the board. Otherwise it looks like selective sensoring disguised as in the interest of the university.

I'm more on the side of no moderating, cause you could simply say the insiders or posters are just guessing and have plausible deniability
Click to expand...
The problem was people putting out names that aren't in the portal yet.

Generally, I agree about less moderation. But the request to not share names not in the portal was put out there and ignored.
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
I think the distinction is more valid when one considers the increased possibility of information getting back to the staff wherever said player currently plays. If those staffs find out too soon, they may have a better chance of deploying strategies to keep the recruit and/or involve the NCAA. If those same staffs learn about a transfer in real time (with no lead time) then certain strategies/countermeasures may not be available to them or be as effective.
Click to expand...

Fully understand if this is the intention and support it. But the mods said it was geared towards how it would look in relation to violations.

Look I really don't care who posts what. My only point that someone posting a guess and then someone posting a position then confirming later that was the player they were alluding to looks no different in terms of violations. At the end of the day both would insinuate talks between the university happened with a kid before putting their name in the portal.

Thats my only point. It looks the same.

If its in the interest of a team finding out and convincing said player to stay, then yes the moderation makes sense.
 
JD08 said:
The problem was people putting out names that aren't in the portal yet.

Generally, I agree about less moderation. But the request to not share names not in the portal was put out there and ignored.
Click to expand...
Man, I don't disagree. At all. But my point is simple..

If we are trying to prevent potential violations, then a poster calling out a position then making a thread after the player enters the portal and saying that was the player they were alluding to is simply no different than posters just posting names. Both could insinuate conversations before the player entered the portal.

Moderate away. I dont care. Just calling out the flaw in reasoning. If the reasoning is to prevent the players current team from persuasion, then he'll yeah, it makes perfect sense.
 
Did a little research into the portal competition. There are a lot of schools with low commit counts. So I thought I would look at who still has room. I added signed HS kids and current portals already into a school.

OSU 4 spots left
UGA 5
Clemson 6
LSU 3
Oregon 4
Ta&m 3
USC 2
OU 9!
UNC 7
PSU6
FSU 5 (already have 4 portals).

Now I'm not considering if some commits count fwd back or whatever and dont know where they stand from the 85 scholi limit.

In other words there are some big programs that will be looking for top prospects. Reading other boards there seems to be a common need for DEs OTs per usual. You look at UNC losing 2 stud RBs with none committed and none above 3 star remaining on their roster. Have to think they get one or two RBs.
 
Advertisement
svenben said:
Did a little research into the portal competition. There are a lot of schools with low commit counts. So I thought I would look at who still has room. I added signed HS kids and current portals already into a school.

OSU 4 spots left
UGA 5
Clemson 6
LSU 3
Oregon 4
Ta&m 3
USC 2
OU 9!
UNC 7
PSU6
FSU 5 (already have 4 portals).

Now I'm not considering if some commits count fwd back or whatever and dont know where they stand from the 85 scholi limit.

In other words there are some big programs that will be looking for top prospects. Reading other boards there seems to be a common need for DEs OTs per usual. You look at UNC losing 2 stud RBs with none committed and none above 3 star remaining on their roster. Have to think they get one or two RBs.
Click to expand...


There are also 255 kids, per Rivals, who are 3-star and above who are not yet committed. So I would expect that some of those spots will still go to high school kids, not just transfers.
 
ristwasdown said:
Fully understand if this is the intention and support it. But the mods said it was geared towards how it would look in relation to violations.

Look I really don't care who posts what. My only point that someone posting a guess and then someone posting a position then confirming later that was the player they were alluding to looks no different in terms of violations. At the end of the day both would insinuate talks between the university happened with a kid before putting their name in the portal.

Thats my only point. It looks the same.

If its in the interest of a team finding out and convincing said player to stay, then yes the moderation makes sense.
Click to expand...
My responses have always been geared towards not tipping off his team’s coaches. It’s pretty clear in here.
 
Advertisement
RVACane said:
My responses have always been geared towards not tipping off his team’s coaches. It’s pretty clear in here.
Click to expand...
I know. My response was geared more toward the other mod when the response was appearances/violations.

I fully agree with not tipping any conversations until a player is read to inform his prior team.
 
RVACane said:
Oh shît... looks like it’s time to Merge!!!!!

All banned posters now unbanned.
Click to expand...
86BBC33A-DED7-4020-A39C-EB3785F9923B.webp
 
Advertisement
Back
Top