I really need to stop getting a post 95% done and leaving it in the draft folder for a few weeks.

Georgia’s coaching change implied many things, and the repudiation of the Mark Richt way of doing things in favor of a more Alabama-style approach is close to the top of the list. We’ve seen more visible and exhaustive recruiting with a budget to match. We’ve seen the support staff grow and investment in a more experienced strength and conditioning staff. You don’t have to connect many dots to see how these changes might make Georgia more competitive.

Even some uncomfortable and controversial policy revisions might make sense in the context of a more competitive program. If certain offenses merit a suspension at one school and not another, sure – claiming a competitive disadvantage doesn’t seem a bridge too far.

Is a restrictive transfer policy one of those difference-makers for a championship program? Did Alabama reach the top thanks to Henry, a ridiculously good defensive front, and preventing a disgruntled third-teamer from looking at Tennessee or Arkansas?

On one hand, Kirby Smart’s revised transfer policy that blocks certain transfer destinations is fairly standard, and it does level this particular playing field. It’s not just Georgia dealing with these policies. Just this month Michigan had to reconsider its own transfer restriction. Louisiana Tech is deciding which course to chart with its signees after a coach resigned.

On the other hand, what’s the payoff for taking a step backwards? Is it worth this contorted rationalization? Even if this policy change is a proxy for a larger turf war, it’s at the expense of the student-athletes and their very finite resource of eligibility.

Just so we remember – almost any transfer (excepting those with rare hardship waivers) must still sit out a year. That’s true even with a release from the current school. Without a release that wait increases to two years. Unless the transfer is to a school in a lower division (FCS, Div II, JUCO, etc.), anyone who has made up his mind to transfer is already willing to sacrifice some eligibility and has accepted that price.

Georgia might seem to have taken the lion’s share of criticism for a commonplace policy, and that doesn’t sit well with a lot of us. But it makes sense – when the program takes a stance outside the norm with a policy it considered the right way to do things and walks it back, that draws attention and raises questions. Will this experience be instructive when the program reviews other controversial policies that Kirby Smart might consider a disadvantage?

Finishing on a slight tangent – it’s stories like these transfer restrictions that come to mind every time I hear coaches talk about early signing periods and the grind of having to “babysit” commitments right up through Signing Day (and, as we’ve experienced the past two years, beyond Signing Day.) Just as you start to have some sympathy for the coaches’ position, you’re reminded what signing that Letter of Intent means. Once you’re in, you’re in. Your choices can be limited for any reason up to and including the new guy wanting to mark his territory. I don’t blame prospects for considering their options as long as they can and using what leverage they might have while they still have it.