FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[GoldandBlueBU]

I don't mind it if a "D1 talent" kid goes and plays for a D3 school either for playing time or academic reasons, as long as all entrance requirements of the school and the NCAA are met.  Just because a kid is bigger or faster (thus the "D1 talent") shouldn't preclude him from playing D3 football, this isn't youth football with the black stripes.  What I don't like is if a kid transfers in from a D1 program (or D2 for that matter) and maintains his remaining eligibility even if he red-shirted at his earlier program.  D3 doesn't red-shirt kids, and that extra year can give a kid an advantage that most D3 kids don't have.  If a D1/D2 kid transfers to a D3 program I would count the red-shirt year as a year of eligibility used.

I'm torn on that one...I think I lean towards what you think, though...it doesn't seem fair that a kid could go to say, UMD, for a year as a redshirt, get bigger, faster, stronger, and then transfer to a D3 and have 4 years remaining...kids that start at D3 don't have that year to physically improve themselves while being part of a D2 or D1 team, and then play their 4 years elsewhere.

What does the rest of the board think?

[bman]

I've heard the argument that Mount Union gets D1 talent to play for them, but I've never bothered to research it.

How many guys on their roster are D1 transfers?

Just because they don't have any D1 transfers doesn't mean they don't have D1 talent players. Just looking at recent history there have been about a half dozen players from Mount Union that have played in the NFL (or at least have been on a roster at one point). If you are good enough to get drafted by the NFL I would say qualifies as D1 talent.

D1 recruits are kids with D1 size/talent coming out of high school.   Not after playing 4 years of college football.   

Most of the D3 players that people identify as being a "D1 talent" grew into that during college.

I suppose it also depends on your definition of talent. To me, either you have the talent or you don't, you don't really grow into talent (size yes, talent, no - there again depends on your definition of talent). I think that coaches can refine talent but kids don't necessarily grow into talent. I guess I didn't really consider the question to be just about getting D1 recruits - but rather about D1 talent playing for them at some point in their career. So if a player eventually is considered D1 talent and he doesn't transfer to a D1 school, he is still playing for them with D1 talent, right?

To my knowledge Mount does not have any D1 transfers on the roster. I could be wrong - I have been before. As far as the past goes - I can not think of 1 of the Mount "greats" that was a D1 transfer. And depending on your definition of "great" Antoine Dillard is the only strong D1 recruit in the group (he was recruited by Texas). Some of the greats that come to mind: Kevin Burke, Ballard, Borchert, Bubonics, Kmic, Moore, Pugh, Garcon, Shorts, Collins, Driskell, Jason Hall, Russ Kring, Larry Kinnard, Kevin Knestrick, Gary Smeck, Adam Marino, Matt Campbell, Chris Kern, Jason Lewis, Larry Kinnard, Adam Irgang, Matt Fechko - good lord too many. Any way - none of them were D1 transfers. I don't even think they were recruited (except for Dillard).
The only name that comes to mind with getting alot of D1 transfers to their program WAS KC Keeler  at Rowan.

Some years back when Rowan would give Mount Union a run for their money Rowan annually had over 10 and maybe as much 20 plus D1 players on there team.
I recall 4.  Please elaborate...

I'd be careful citing that article...if a number of things in there were true, Rowan would have been hammered by the NCAA...

I know those teams...I saw those teams...I know players on both Bunting's teams and Keeler's teams...

They may have had 20 transfers from higher levels, but they weren't higher level starter type players...(anyone can walk on and be a tacking dummy)...
The WRs were legitimate D1 talent, and some of the O and D line players would have been D2 starters... outside of that...no way...he!!, their QB transferred to WU and no way was he a D1 talent!...good D3 QB yes...but would have never played in a higher division...

And Keeler stating that "no team from PA would play him" is BS...Widener sought out a game with Rowan and couldn't make it work...and had to drop it...
...Like normal Keeler...leaves a trail of BS a mile long...

[AO]

I don't mind it if a "D1 talent" kid goes and plays for a D3 school either for playing time or academic reasons, as long as all entrance requirements of the school and the NCAA are met.  Just because a kid is bigger or faster (thus the "D1 talent") shouldn't preclude him from playing D3 football, this isn't youth football with the black stripes.  What I don't like is if a kid transfers in from a D1 program (or D2 for that matter) and maintains his remaining eligibility even if he red-shirted at his earlier program.  D3 doesn't red-shirt kids, and that extra year can give a kid an advantage that most D3 kids don't have.  If a D1/D2 kid transfers to a D3 program I would count the red-shirt year as a year of eligibility used.

I'm torn on that one...I think I lean towards what you think, though...it doesn't seem fair that a kid could go to say, UMD, for a year as a redshirt, get bigger, faster, stronger, and then transfer to a D3 and have 4 years remaining...kids that start at D3 don't have that year to physically improve themselves while being part of a D2 or D1 team, and then play their 4 years elsewhere.

What does the rest of the board think?

redshirting is overrated.  Many freshman are able to contribute right away and many even have their most productive seasons as freshmen.  It seems like many D1 programs redshirt kids just to manage their depth charts over the years, not because they're not physically able to compete.

[GoldandBlueBU]

I don't mind it if a "D1 talent" kid goes and plays for a D3 school either for playing time or academic reasons, as long as all entrance requirements of the school and the NCAA are met.  Just because a kid is bigger or faster (thus the "D1 talent") shouldn't preclude him from playing D3 football, this isn't youth football with the black stripes.  What I don't like is if a kid transfers in from a D1 program (or D2 for that matter) and maintains his remaining eligibility even if he red-shirted at his earlier program.  D3 doesn't red-shirt kids, and that extra year can give a kid an advantage that most D3 kids don't have.  If a D1/D2 kid transfers to a D3 program I would count the red-shirt year as a year of eligibility used.

I'm torn on that one...I think I lean towards what you think, though...it doesn't seem fair that a kid could go to say, UMD, for a year as a redshirt, get bigger, faster, stronger, and then transfer to a D3 and have 4 years remaining...kids that start at D3 don't have that year to physically improve themselves while being part of a D2 or D1 team, and then play their 4 years elsewhere.

What does the rest of the board think?

redshirting is overrated.  Many freshman are able to contribute right away and many even have their most productive seasons as freshmen.  It seems like many D1 programs redshirt kids just to manage their depth charts over the years, not because they're not physically able to compete.

Yeah, that's probably true in a lot of cases.

I just don't like that D3 transfers retain their 4 years of eligiblity...a kid who participates in a d1 or d2 strength training program, practices with the team, and does everything but play in the games should, IMO, have that count as a year of his d3 eligibility.

[Boys of Fall]

I don't mind it if a "D1 talent" kid goes and plays for a D3 school either for playing time or academic reasons, as long as all entrance requirements of the school and the NCAA are met.  Just because a kid is bigger or faster (thus the "D1 talent") shouldn't preclude him from playing D3 football, this isn't youth football with the black stripes.  What I don't like is if a kid transfers in from a D1 program (or D2 for that matter) and maintains his remaining eligibility even if he red-shirted at his earlier program.  D3 doesn't red-shirt kids, and that extra year can give a kid an advantage that most D3 kids don't have.  If a D1/D2 kid transfers to a D3 program I would count the red-shirt year as a year of eligibility used.

I'm torn on that one...I think I lean towards what you think, though...it doesn't seem fair that a kid could go to say, UMD, for a year as a redshirt, get bigger, faster, stronger, and then transfer to a D3 and have 4 years remaining...kids that start at D3 don't have that year to physically improve themselves while being part of a D2 or D1 team, and then play their 4 years elsewhere.

What does the rest of the board think?

redshirting is overrated.  Many freshman are able to contribute right away and many even have their most productive seasons as freshmen.  It seems like many D1 programs redshirt kids just to manage their depth charts over the years, not because they're not physically able to compete.

Yeah, that's probably true in a lot of cases.

I just don't like that D3 transfers retain their 4 years of eligiblity...a kid who participates in a d1 or d2 strength training program, practices with the team, and does everything but play in the games should, IMO, have that count as a year of his d3 eligibility.

If red shirting wasn't advantageous to programs or kids it wouldn't be done.  Kids are bigger, stronger, faster, and understand the game better as 5th year seniors than when they're true freshmen.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I don't mind it if a "D1 talent" kid goes and plays for a D3 school either for playing time or academic reasons, as long as all entrance requirements of the school and the NCAA are met.  Just because a kid is bigger or faster (thus the "D1 talent") shouldn't preclude him from playing D3 football, this isn't youth football with the black stripes.  What I don't like is if a kid transfers in from a D1 program (or D2 for that matter) and maintains his remaining eligibility even if he red-shirted at his earlier program.  D3 doesn't red-shirt kids, and that extra year can give a kid an advantage that most D3 kids don't have.  If a D1/D2 kid transfers to a D3 program I would count the red-shirt year as a year of eligibility used.

I'm torn on that one...I think I lean towards what you think, though...it doesn't seem fair that a kid could go to say, UMD, for a year as a redshirt, get bigger, faster, stronger, and then transfer to a D3 and have 4 years remaining...kids that start at D3 don't have that year to physically improve themselves while being part of a D2 or D1 team, and then play their 4 years elsewhere.

What does the rest of the board think?

I think it's a relatively minor problem, because I don't think many kids that go to D1 or D2 schools are doing so with the nefarious plan of redshirting, physically improving themselves, learning, and then transferring to D3 schools.  Nor are there D3 coaches figuring out that they'll game the system by sending all of their favorite recruits to a D1 school for a redshirt year and then bring them in the following season with 4 years of eligibility.  It just can't happen so often that it's worth making a rule about.

Reply to another post re: the general note that a "D1 transfer" doesn't necessarily imply that kid was a Division I contributor.  It cannot be ruled out, but for every "D1 transfer" that was actually capable of doing much at their D1 school, there are a couple dozen kids who walked on at an FCS school, realized that had no chance of playing any real time, transferred down to D3 (where they should have been all along), and end up being just another guy.  Read up on Nathan Dorton (App State to Emory & Henry) for an example, albeit a delusional father/son combination, of what that looks like.

[OldAuggie]

I don't mind it if a "D1 talent" kid goes and plays for a D3 school either for playing time or academic reasons, as long as all entrance requirements of the school and the NCAA are met.  Just because a kid is bigger or faster (thus the "D1 talent") shouldn't preclude him from playing D3 football, this isn't youth football with the black stripes.  What I don't like is if a kid transfers in from a D1 program (or D2 for that matter) and maintains his remaining eligibility even if he red-shirted at his earlier program.  D3 doesn't red-shirt kids, and that extra year can give a kid an advantage that most D3 kids don't have.  If a D1/D2 kid transfers to a D3 program I would count the red-shirt year as a year of eligibility used.

I'm torn on that one...I think I lean towards what you think, though...it doesn't seem fair that a kid could go to say, UMD, for a year as a redshirt, get bigger, faster, stronger, and then transfer to a D3 and have 4 years remaining...kids that start at D3 don't have that year to physically improve themselves while being part of a D2 or D1 team, and then play their 4 years elsewhere.

What does the rest of the board think?

redshirting is overrated.  Many freshman are able to contribute right away and many even have their most productive seasons as freshmen.  It seems like many D1 programs redshirt kids just to manage their depth charts over the years, not because they're not physically able to compete.

Yeah, that's probably true in a lot of cases.

I just don't like that D3 transfers retain their 4 years of eligiblity...a kid who participates in a d1 or d2 strength training program, practices with the team, and does everything but play in the games should, IMO, have that count as a year of his d3 eligibility.

I was that guy, a D2 transfer. I gained a year of eligibility just because of the situation and by the time I was a senior I was for sure older and stronger than I was as a junior and probably stronger than other seniors at my position because I was a 5th year senior and I had an extra year to work out. To AO's point though it did not make me a better player really. I was still the same player, just maybe stronger and faster than I had been. I gained a lot of technique at the D2 level that I did not get at D3 but after a while I thought I lost those techniques without the constant practice of those techniques we had at the D2 level. In other words I turned in to a D3 player. Maybe it helped me in that I would never have attained the level I did without that extra time. I guess I can think of some plays that the extra maturity helped but for the most part in the end I was what I was; just an average MIAC player that probably should have gone MIAC in the first place.

[Boys of Fall]

I don't mind it if a "D1 talent" kid goes and plays for a D3 school either for playing time or academic reasons, as long as all entrance requirements of the school and the NCAA are met.  Just because a kid is bigger or faster (thus the "D1 talent") shouldn't preclude him from playing D3 football, this isn't youth football with the black stripes.  What I don't like is if a kid transfers in from a D1 program (or D2 for that matter) and maintains his remaining eligibility even if he red-shirted at his earlier program.  D3 doesn't red-shirt kids, and that extra year can give a kid an advantage that most D3 kids don't have.  If a D1/D2 kid transfers to a D3 program I would count the red-shirt year as a year of eligibility used.

I'm torn on that one...I think I lean towards what you think, though...it doesn't seem fair that a kid could go to say, UMD, for a year as a redshirt, get bigger, faster, stronger, and then transfer to a D3 and have 4 years remaining...kids that start at D3 don't have that year to physically improve themselves while being part of a D2 or D1 team, and then play their 4 years elsewhere.

What does the rest of the board think?

redshirting is overrated.  Many freshman are able to contribute right away and many even have their most productive seasons as freshmen.  It seems like many D1 programs redshirt kids just to manage their depth charts over the years, not because they're not physically able to compete.

Yeah, that's probably true in a lot of cases.

I just don't like that D3 transfers retain their 4 years of eligiblity...a kid who participates in a d1 or d2 strength training program, practices with the team, and does everything but play in the games should, IMO, have that count as a year of his d3 eligibility.

I was that guy, a D2 transfer. I gained a year of eligibility just because of the situation and by the time I was a senior I was for sure older and stronger than I was as a junior and probably stronger than other seniors at my position because I was a 5th year senior and I had an extra year to work out. To AO's point though it did not make me a better player really. I was still the same player, just maybe stronger and faster than I had been. I gained a lot of technique at the D2 level that I did not get at D3 but after a while I thought I lost those techniques without the constant practice of those techniques we had at the D2 level. In other words I turned in to a D3 player. Maybe it helped me in that I would never have attained the level I did without that extra time. I guess I can think of some plays that the extra maturity helped but for the most part in the end I was what I was; just an average MIAC player that probably should have gone MIAC in the first place.

I doubt I know as much about college football as others on this board, but given there are more seniors on the field than freshmen tells me the older kids are stronger, faster, and know their positions better than the younger kids.  Many of these kids don't seem to play until they're upperclassmen.  IMO the D1/D2 transfers gain a year to play that the D3 kids don't get.  In any event, I like Saturday afternoons in the fall.

[OzJohnnie]

I'm not concerned because I doubt there has ever been the motivation by an 18-year-old to exploit the redshirt rule for DIII...

"I'll get a scholarship, redshirt, fail to get playtime or find myself out of place with the culture and the go DIII. Yeah, that's the ticket. Hey, mom!  I'm taking the NDSU scholarship so I can get that extra year and really dominate at SJU in 2021!"

Obviously, people take advantage of the situation the find themselves in, but no one sets out to follow that path before they start. No issue here.

[DuffMan]

Oz, you just spoiled the plan for my son. 

[GoldandBlueBU]

I'm not concerned because I doubt there has ever been the motivation by an 18-year-old to exploit the redshirt rule for DIII...

"I'll get a scholarship, redshirt, fail to get playtime or find myself out of place with the culture and the go DIII. Yeah, that's the ticket. Hey, mom!  I'm taking the NDSU scholarship so I can get that extra year and really dominate at SJU in 2021!"

Obviously, people take advantage of the situation the find themselves in, but no one sets out to follow that path before they start. No issue here.

I guess my thought isn't that it is intentionally exploited in that manner, it is just an unfair advantage for those that end up going that route, even if it is not planned.

If you were on a roster, and growing as a player by being in practice and through workouts, that to me is the spirit of a D3 season of eligiblity, and you should lose it.

Obviously not an issue of fairness between teams, since anyone can do it, just seems to go against the grain of what the kids that went the d3 route can do.

Anyhow, BOF said it best. +k

IMO the D1/D2 transfers gain a year to play that the D3 kids don't get.  In any event, I like Saturday afternoons in the fall.

[Pat Coleman]

I never liked it when the MIAC used to refuse to honor another division's redshirts. To me, that is punishing a kid for a mistake made as an 18-year-old. I was glad when that practice ended some years back.

Some kid just realized what we all know: that D-III is a great place to be! They didn't get to compete during the redshirt year, and I like giving them four years of competition. 

[OzJohnnie]

Can I just say: I'm really getting bored of the UWW/MUC lockout.  Come on Johnnies, you're doing it for all DIII.

[2115 Summit]

Can I just say: I'm really getting bored of the UWW/MUC lockout.  Come on Johnnies TOMMIES, you're doing it for all DIII.

Fixed it for everyone!

[OzJohnnie]

For anyone interested in a little Christmas magic for the littlies, we've used the Portable North Pole for about four years (https://www.portablenorthpole.com/).  They do a great Santa video that's kept our kids guessing for a couple years.  #3 is nine this year and it's our last with someone that still believes.  She's hanging onto the Santa idea just in case...  Or to humor us.  Regardless, we're enjoying it while we can.