The 2015-16 College football thread (SPOILERS)

[Wake]

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't see why he should get an additional year. He chose to transfer. He could have transferred to a lower level and not had to sit out a year, but chose to not only stay in the fbs but stayed in the same conference. Thems the rules.

 

[sposey013168]

Since he was a walk on if Texas tech were not douches this would be resolved

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

[deuce]

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't see why he should get an additional year. He chose to transfer. He could have transferred to a lower level and not had to sit out a year, but chose to not only stay in the fbs but stayed in the same conference. Thems the rules.

From the article:

NCAA rules generally don't allow Division I athletes to transfer without having to sit out a year, but there is a “one-time transfer exception” that lets most athletes transfer one time without that penalty.

The exception does not apply to football, basketball, baseball and ice hockey players — except in the case of walk-ons. But even with walk-ons, the one-time transfer exception depends on the former school certifying in writing that it has no objection.
​

Texas Tech could have just let him go and it wouldn't have been an issue ... they refused to do so. It's not like they recruited him, gave him a scholarship, or originally even had plans for him (he only started the season because of injury to the starting QB). But he and Kliff didn't get along, and Kliff acted like a sh*tweasel. It's bush league (and yeah I am biased).

Just another reason to hate Tortilla Tech for this Sooner fan.

 

[Wake]

From the article:

NCAA rules generally don't allow Division I athletes to transfer without having to sit out a year, but there is a “one-time transfer exception” that lets most athletes transfer one time without that penalty.

The exception does not apply to football, basketball, baseball and ice hockey players — except in the case of walk-ons. But even with walk-ons, the one-time transfer exception depends on the former school certifying in writing that it has no objection.
​

Texas Tech could have just let him go and it wouldn't have been an issue ... they refused to do so. It's bush league (and yeah I am biased).

Why the hell would they let him go to a team in the same conference?

I bet had he gone to Houston or Tulsa there would have been a much better chance of being released.

I certainly wouldn't expect UF to release a player to Auburn.

 

[JohnSinVA]

From the article:

NCAA rules generally don't allow Division I athletes to transfer without having to sit out a year, but there is a “one-time transfer exception” that lets most athletes transfer one time without that penalty.

The exception does not apply to football, basketball, baseball and ice hockey players — except in the case of walk-ons. But even with walk-ons, the one-time transfer exception depends on the former school certifying in writing that it has no objection.
​

Texas Tech could have just let him go and it wouldn't have been an issue ... they refused to do so. It's not like they recruited him, gave him a scholarship, or originally even had plans for him (he only started the season because of injury to the starting QB). But he and Kliff didn't get along, and Kliff acted like a sh*tweasel. It's bush league (and yeah I am biased).

And they probably would have had he gone somewhere outside the conference. As it was, the conference rules allowed them that leverage, and they used it. Barn door's open and the horse is long gone.

 

[Jman]

Why the hell would they let him go to a team in the same conference?

I bet had he gone to Houston or Tulsa there would have been a much better chance of being released.

I certainly wouldn't expect UF to release a player to Auburn.

The whole point here though is that he was a walk on, paying his own way through the year (actually year and a half as he had to foot the bill at OU 1/2 of last year until they could put him on scholarship IIRC), and not a scholarship player. With athletes on scholarship I agree totally, but a walk-on, its a rule I don't understand. But, thats my opinion.

 

[deuce]

Why the hell would they let him go to a team in the same conference?

I don't know ... maybe because they're unpaid student athletes and the NCAA and universities one would assume, would be at least somewhat interested in the student's well-being? The rules make sense if they're paying these kids appropriately, but they're not ... by a long shot.

Besides, what was TT protecting exactly by making him lose a year of eligibility?

 

[Wake]

I don't know ... maybe because they're unpaid student athletes and the NCAA and universities one would assume, would be at least somewhat interested in the student's well-being?

What was TT protecting exactly by making him lose a year of eligibility?

Keeping Texas or Oklahoma from offering other walk ons a spot?

It's a rule, TT used it to keep their player from going to a rival. I don't see the travesty but that's just me. I don't see any reason he could have not chosen a school outside the conference.

 

[deuce]

Keeping Texas or Oklahoma from offering other walk ons a spot?

It's a rule, TT used it to keep their player from going to a rival. I don't see the travesty but that's just me. I don't see any reason he could have not chosen a school outside the conference.

You're assuming he would have been given a waiver by TT if he transferred out of conference. I don't think that's a given.

 

[Wake]

You're assuming he would have been given a waiver by TT if he transferred out of conference. I don't think that's a given.

It's not a given, but it's a logical assumption that his chances would have been far greater.

Frankly I'd be kinda annoyed I'd our coach let Jeremy Johnson go to a team we will play next year. That doesn't make sense for our program.

 

[SW]

Exactly, it's akin to trading within the division at the next level. I wouldn't want to lose a guy to a team that I had to play next season, and would do all I could to discourage it.

 

[JohnSinVA]

I don't know ... maybe because they're unpaid student athletes and the NCAA and universities one would assume, would be at least somewhat interested in the student's well-being? The rules make sense if they're paying these kids appropriately, but they're not ... by a long shot.

Besides, what was TT protecting exactly by making him lose a year of eligibility?

Had his reason for leaving been centered on his academic options at OU vs. TT, rather than his inability to get along with the TT head FB coach, this line of argument would have some merit.

 

[Jman]

It's not a given, but it's a logical assumption that his chances would have been far greater.

Frankly I'd be kinda annoyed I'd our coach let Jeremy Johnson go to a team we will play next year. That doesn't make sense for our program.

Kingsbury is a douche, he wouldn't release him no matter what, and thats wrong.

My only argument is this, let him use his redshirt year for the year he had to sit out. If he had already used his redshirt, I honestly wouldn't argue this whole thing.

 

[JohnSinVA]

The whole point here though is that he was a walk on, paying his own way through the year (actually year and a half as he had to foot the bill at OU 1/2 of last year until they could put him on scholarship IIRC), and not a scholarship player. With athletes on scholarship I agree totally, but a walk-on, its a rule I don't understand. But, thats my opinion.

Eligibility is determined regardless of whether or not one is a scholarship player. If it weren't you would have kids playing 5 years, one as a Freshman walk-on, the rest as a scholarship athlete. There isn't anything inherently wrong with the 5 years to complete 4 system, other than occasional special case like the one above. As far as the NCAA rules go, he's had his four. Had he only played in a couple games for TT or just played a few minutes of garbage time here and there, he might have more of an argument.

 

[Jman]

Eligibility is determined regardless of whether or not one is a scholarship player. If it weren't you would have kids playing 5 years, one as a Freshman walk-on, the rest as a scholarship athlete. There isn't anything inherently wrong with the 5 years to complete 4 system, other than occasional special case like the one above. As far as the NCAA rules go, he's had his four. Had he only played in a couple games for TT or just played a few minutes of garbage time here and there, he might have more of an argument.

Yet I'm still entitled to disagree, particularly for the fact that he never got to use his redshirt year.

As I said, if he was a scholarship athlete, I'd have no issues with all this, but he wasn't, and to me its not fair nor will it EVER be.

 

[deuce]

Exactly, it's akin to trading within the division at the next level.

The next level, where they're being paid millions. I understand the argument that you don't want to offer scholarships to kids only to have them reneg a week before school and going elsewhere, leaving the original school in the lurch with a potential gap at that position. But again, Baker was a walk-on, and this wasn't done immediately before the season started either.

Had his reason for leaving been centered on his academic options at OU vs. TT, rather than his inability to get along with the TT head FB coach, this line of argument would have some merit.

Not sure why Baker should be penalized if his coach is a sh*tweasel. This is another problem at the collegiate level. What protections do these kids actually have in place? Scholarships renewed annually, no ability to extricate themselves from a bad situation without taking a year hit on eligibility if they stay at Div I, minimal monetary compensation while their coaches and the universities make billions off of their efforts ... let's just call it what it is ... a business, with the actual worker bees earning a very low wage. Then allow them to unionize and see what happens.

 

[SW]

Interesting there's a lot of anguish towards a coach who did something that another fanbase doesn't agree with. If it's the rule, what's the big deal?

Kid could've gone JUCO like most other players do, or out of conference if there wouldn't have been a year lost. Life's tough, wear your helmet.

 

[deuce]

Interesting there's a lot of anguish towards a coach who did something that another fanbase doesn't agree with. If it's the rule, what's the big deal?

Kid could've gone JUCO like most other players do, or out of conference if there wouldn't have been a year lost. Life's tough, wear your helmet.

Never heard of kids dropping down to JUCO, it's usually the other way around. IIRC, the only way to be guaranteed he wouldn't have lost a year of eligibility is by dropping down to Division II.

The rule is crap. I think it's perfectly reasonable to call it what it is ... crap. This is how (and why) rules get changed. Someone realizes a rule is crap (usually because they've been bit in the arse) and they fight for change. I don't see anything wrong with that. As I stated, I think timing should definitely play a role, especially when considering tying up a scholarship, but for players who don't ditch their school last minute - and especially don't have scholarship contractual obligations - I don't see why they should be penalized.

 

[Jman]

Interesting there's a lot of anguish towards a coach who did something that another fanbase doesn't agree with. If it's the rule, what's the big deal?

Kid could've gone JUCO like most other players do, or out of conference if there wouldn't have been a year lost. Life's tough, wear your helmet.

Having watched him as a player, and now coach for years, I don't dislike him because he's at another school, I dislike him because he's a clown.

The beauty of it is, we are discussing OPINIONS. Funny how that works and they can vary.

 

[Wake]

The 2015-16 College football thread (SPOILERS)

Never heard of kids dropping down to JUCO, it's usually the other way around. IIRC, the only way to be guaranteed he wouldn't have lost a year of eligibility is by dropping down to Division II.

The rule is crap. I think it's perfectly reasonable to call it what it is ... crap. This is how (and why) rules get changed. Someone realizes a rule is crap (usually because they've been bit in the arse) and they fight for change. I don't see anything wrong with that. As I stated, I think timing should definitely play a role, especially when considering tying up a scholarship, but for players who don't ditch their school last minute - and especially don't have scholarship contractual obligations - I don't see why they should be penalized.

Players leave major schools and go back to Juco all the time. Cam did it when. He left UF, we have a QB comkngwho did the same thing, left FSU went to a JC and is now headed to Auburn.

And I'm fairly certain you can go to an FCS school without sitting out, don't have to go all the way down to division 2

 

[deuce]

And I'm fairly certain you can go to an FCS school without sitting out, don't have to go all the way down to division 2

Yeah I believe you're correct. Not much comfort in that though for players who can compete (and compete well) at the FBS level ...

 

[SW]

Opinion of a rule is fine, but that rule is a fine line saving college football from a silly season like no other. Could you imagine the lunacy that would ensue if kids were able to swap schools at the drop of a hat? Love it, hate it, whatever you wish, but the alternative would be insane.

 

[deuce]

Opinion of a rule is fine, but that rule is a fine line saving college football from a silly season like no other. Could you imagine the lunacy that would ensue if kids were able to swap schools at the drop of a hat? Love it, hate it, whatever you wish, but the alternative would be insane.

Pretty sure I said above that timing was key. And again, Baker wasn't even a scholarship player. He wasn't tying up a scholarship for a critical position, he didn't leave moments before the season was to start. There is some reasoning behind the rule that I understand, but it's application can be quite draconian when it need not be.

 

[JohnSinVA]

Not sure why Baker should be penalized if his coach is a sh*tweasel. This is another problem at the collegiate level. What protections do these kids actually have in place? Scholarships renewed annually, no ability to extricate themselves from a bad situation without taking a year hit on eligibility if they stay at Div I, minimal monetary compensation while their coaches and the universities make billions off of their efforts ... let's just call it what it is ... a business, with the actual worker bees earning a very low wage. Then allow them to unionize and see what happens.

Life is tough. Sometimes we have to learn hard lessons. Kingsbury didn't suddenly turn into a sh*tweasel once Baker walked onto campus. Don't want to lose a year of eligibility under the current system? Transfer to a school in the Championship subdivision. Sure, it's a business, and the schools and coaches make bank. Yes, players can be released from their scholarships by the school, but more times than not the schools honor their commitment. Case in point was a guy in my signing class who, literally days after signing his LOI was involved in a car accident and suffered a neck fracture. His scholarship was honored. It's up to players and parents to choose schools who recognize and accept what I think is a moral obligation to the kids they recruit, rather than looking for the brightest lights and the most television cameras.

Come New Year's Eve, 4PM EST, do you plan on turning on the TV and further feeding the very leviathan your post rails against?

 

[SW]

Pretty sure I said above that timing was key. And again, Baker wasn't even a scholarship player. He wasn't tying up a scholarship for a critical position, he didn't leave moments before the season was to start. There is some reasoning behind the rule that I understand, but it's application can be quite draconian when it need not be.

Yeah draconian is a good word for it, but it still serves a purpose. Why didn't he go to OU to start with if he was going to walk on and pay at TT?