Drew Kerekes

Are we on the verge of free agency in college football?

Late last month, when word came out that former Ole Miss quarterback Shea Patterson would be immediately eligible to play at Michigan this fall, it certainly felt like we were one step closer. Normally, Patterson would have had to sit out a year upon transferring from one FBS school to another, but Patterson applied for a waiver, and the NCAA granted his request.

The reasoning Patterson used to the NCAA was that Ole Miss had misled him about the NCAA investigation going on while Patterson was being recruited by the Rebels coaching staff under then-head coach Hugh Freeze. It was a grievance specific to Ole Miss, but whenever any conversation about transfers comes up, it seems like there’s eventually a shift to a more big-picture outlook.

Specifically, there’s an idea floating around about allowing college athletes to transfer elsewhere — even between one FBS school and another — and become immediately eligible, regardless of whether or not they’re a graduate transfer from their current university versus having only been there a year. Were such a rule in place, Patterson never would have had to apply for a waiver in the first place.

There are two schools of thought with this. Proponents of such a rule argue it’s what’s best for the student-athlete, and a reasonable argument can be made here. Though student-athletes on scholarship are essentially getting a free education in exchange for their services, the amount of money college athletics generates likely surpasses the value of the athletic scholarships the schools use on these athletes. Despite this, the athletes don’t see a dime of that money, and under current NCAA rules, they aren’t even allowed to profit off of their own name or likeness (say, by selling autographs). Allowing transfers between FBS schools without penalty would not only be what’s best for the student-athlete, but it would also somewhat balance a system that is currently tilted way in the favor of the NCAA’s member institutions. 

Opponents shudder at the thought of what would be “free agency.” Coaches are the most outspoken against a possible rule because they feel like, after one year, they would have to essentially re-recruit their own players while likely fending off interest in those players by other programs, i.e. tampering. (More on that shortly.) While it’s difficult to picture a mass exodus of players every year, I do think allowing transfers without penalty would likely lead to some sort of uptick in the number of transfers in college football, and I don’t even want to imagine what it would do to college basketball in that regard.

I actually had a Twitter discussion about this topic some time ago with former West Lauderdale standout Richard Thomas. At the time, I was opposed to such an idea, while Thomas was in favor. Having more time to think about it, I’ve mostly come down on his side of the argument. Since the NCAA is supposed to be about what’s best for the student-athlete, a rule allowing transfers without penalty makes sense, even when you consider the possible ramifications. Many in my profession that favor of the rule, I believe, genuinely want it to happen because of this, first and foremost. However, I also believe there is another reason folks in my line of work wish for a penalty-free transfer rule, a reason that, frankly, is born out of delusion rather than reality.

The SEC is currently considering two high-profile transfer cases. Alabama offensive lineman Brandon Kennedy, a graduate transfer, wants to play for either Auburn or Tennessee. As a graduate transfer, Kennedy would be immediately eligible if he went out of the conference, but because he wants to stay in the SEC, a current SEC rule allows schools to block such a transfer. If he wanted to either school, he would have to sit out a year unless the league granted a waiver. The other is Ole Miss wide receiver Van Jefferson, who wants to transfer to Florida but is waiting a decision by the SEC this week about a proposed rule that would allow in-conference transfers from teams who were levied a postseason ban. Since Ole Miss is ineligible to play in a bowl game this fall, the SEC adopting this rule would mean he could transfer to Florida with no penalty.

If the “free agency” rule were adopted, you would be seeing a lot more cases like these, and the assumption is it would help the “have nots” of the college football world. In addition to a rule favoring student-athletes, I believe what a lot of the talking heads also want is parity, and they see this kind of transfer environment as “helping the little guy,” whether the little guy is the student-athlete versus the big bad institution, or the big FBS powerhouse versus the Little Engine That Went 6-6 In 2017.

What this logic fails to take into account is the powerhouse programs are what they are not just because their head coaches are good at recruiting and developing players, but also because they understand the NCAA rules and are able to manipulate them to their advantage. Create a rule that prevents Nick Saban from bumping into a recruit at a certain time of the year, and he’ll just Skype or FaceTime that recruit, etc.

No, the schools a free agency transfer system would benefit the most would be the “haves.” You aren’t going to cripple the likes of Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Oklahoma or Ohio State by having open season every offseason. Here’s how it would work: A designated “middle man,” or a runner, or whatever you want to call them, will be the one responsible for “reaching out” to top-tier athletes who aren’t getting the playing time they likely feel they deserve. These folks will be the ones responsible for trying to convince these athletes to come to the schools they unofficially represent. Of course, a system of plausible deniability — hence me describing them as “unofficial” representatives — will be in place with these runners so that it doesn’t ever come back to the head coach, which means you can throw out whatever tampering rules are currently in place.

“But that’s OK,” you would argue, “Because everyone will be doing that, and they’ll be hitting the ‘haves’ just as much as the ‘haves’ are hitting the ‘have nots.’” Except the “haves” will also devote resources to player retention and will probably be a lot more effective at it than most. Will some still slip through the cracks? Of course, but will it matter if Directional University’s future first-round draft pick is heading to an FBS powerhouse? No.

While it’s no longer enough to make me want to prevent free agency, a major change in transfer rules would create a mess in terms of tampering. If the NCAA is willing to accept that reality, then by all means do what’s best for the student-athlete. When all is said and done, though, don’t be surprised if the same teams are consistently making the College Football Playoff. Free agency isn’t bringing any of the giants to their knees. 

Drew Kerekes is the sports editor at The Meridian Star. He can be reached at dkerekes@themeridianstar.com.