Interesting read: St. Joe's won't release me to play at UAB and I don't know why

Donate To GopherHole

Thanks for the link, Bleed. Very interesting indeed. While this is only one side of the story, it sounds to me like St. Joe's coach should grow up.
 

I tried to keep "both sides" in mind too, but then realized what other side is there besides this kid? I mean, can anyone think of a legit reason not to sign the waiver? It's not like he's transferring within the conference or to a rival or anything that jumps out at you as making logical sense. I agree with Dr. Don. The school and the coach need to grow the eff up.
 

I don't know all the facts, but tend to think people are siding way too heavily with the kid. (not in this thread, but speaking on the general take by others I've seen early on.)

St. Joe's is playing by the rules. The risk is bad pub, as well as future players wondering if the school is going to be jerky about transferring or other issues in the future. If they are OK with that, then do what you gotta.

My read is all parties here are acting like jerks. I look at the timeline of the kid's "story", including some missing pieces, as well as the *laptop issue* he had and realize there are some additional perspectives we can't see. The rule (specifically the option for the former school to object to the immediate playing time exception) is there for a reason, is it not? I need to understand why the rule is there. If it's so schools can do what St. Joe's is doing, then people should whine to the NCAA.

In general, the grad transfer rule is probably flawed. The intention is wonderful and the lipstick on it that says, 'this is all about academics' is cute, but not real. Soon enough, many will grow as tired of grad transfers as they are tired of one-and-dones.
 

If coaches can bail on program, work for another school right away, and face no negative consequences for their actions, shouldn't the players whom the coaches sign be able to do so as well?

It is a bad rule, but that doesn't mean St. Joe's should use it to screw a kid over, which is exactly what they are doing.

What does St. Joe's gain from this?
 


From the Barn said:
It is a bad rule, but that doesn't mean St. Joe's should use it to screw a kid over, which is exactly what they are doing.

What does St. Joe's gain from this?
Click to expand...

Or did the kid first screw St. Joe's over? Might teach the next kid to not d*ck around with them.
 


Might teach the next kid to not d*ck around with them.
Click to expand...

It won't. St. Joe's will have enough bad publicity about this they'll let him go, the coach will still look like an a$$hole. Now they're in a lose/lose. There is nothing to be gained from this.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
Or did the kid first screw St. Joe's over? Might teach the next kid to not d*ck around with them.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't a coach, AD, President and school be above that though? This isn't between two junior high kids where "because you screwed me, I'm screwing you" is normal. Like everyone said, nothing good comes of this. It makes the school and program look really bad.

St. Joseph's saying that this is not because of academics just proves to me that they're just making things up because they're pissed off. His transfer seems to be more about academics than most.
 




GoAUpher said:
Here's the take from Andy Staples over at CNNSI: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...t-athletes/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a2

Apparently, Gopher Warrior also works for Indiana State. :)
Click to expand...

Good article.

Let's examine the system that "isn't broke," shall we? At age 18, an athlete signs a National Letter of Intent. This forces all other schools to stop recruiting the athlete, meaning the athlete loses all his leverage. In return for giving up his leverage, the athlete receives a guarantee from the university of ... nothing. Oh, the contract claims to guarantee a one-year scholarship, but if the school has oversigned, it doesn't have to provide that scholarship.
Click to expand...

I agree that the oversigning thing is an issue. But I think there is two sides of this. Before a recruit signs, they have all the leverage. Sometimes a recruit who decides late what school he wants to go to can put a program in a no-win situation.

Example:

John Doe is a highly recruited RB with a bunch of BCS offers. The Minnesota coaches have plans to try to sign two running backs. John Doe is by far their #1 target at that position. But he is taking a long time to make his decision and ultimately waits until signing day to announce his commitment. Meanwhile, the Gophers recruit other RB's and get commitments from two good players, but are not at the same level as John Doe. But they want to have two guys locked up as it's uncertain if Doe signs with them. Then John Doe announces on signing day that he's committing to Minnesota. The Gophers' coaches can do three things:
1. Sign all three and maybe sign one less at another position
2. Sign all three and eventually oversign
3. Retract the scholarship of one of the other two RB's.

What's best for the program is probably 2 or 3. But that also comes with criticism. The whole recruiting process in college football is a mess in my opinion.
 

More whining on behalf of the poor, poor amateur athlete. Just like virtually everywhere else on planet Earth, those who control the means of production (in this case, the NCAA member institutions) get to set the rules. Are those rules necessarily fair? No, but life in itself is not fair. College is meant to teach you about how life works, and you may as well start learning this fact early. Don't like it? Tough. Go start your own competing amateur athletic association and see how well you can compete with the NCAA. If the poor, poor athlete doesn't want to play by their rules, he/she is more than free to go somewhere else and do something else. What's that you say? There is no other place for a poor student to play a kid's sport for free and get a tertiary education for free? Oh. Well, then I guess they better buck up and play by the rules.
 




Sounds to me like Martelli is mad because the player pretended like he would be round in order to take summer classes. I suspect the kid is a bit of a manipulator but Martelli should be happy to be rid of him.
 

No matter if you think O'Brien is a cry baby, may have been a bad teammate, or whatever, it still doesn't make sense for St. Joseph's to do this. The only thing that comes of it is bad publicity. Sometimes it's better just to part ways with someone, no matter how mad it makes you. Him leaving and playing at UAB does nothing to hurt St. Joseph's or the program.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
That article isn't about crybaby O'Brien's situation. Not even close.
Click to expand...
I was using it because it dovetails nicely with the "well we're just following the rules" crowd (cough). If you stack the rules in your favor against common sense and decency then yes, you certainly can do all sorts of BS stuff.
 

St. Joe's can't win in this situation, but I have a hard time condemning them for not signing the release, especially if there was some implied agreement that he would be back for this season. The brighest red flag in the whole thing was his timing of departure. He walked at graduation, presumably mid to late May, and had not made a decision to leave. Sometime after that, he decides to bolt, leaving St. Joe's short one seven footer and virtually no chance of finding a scholarship player to replace him the next season. That is a big deal for the school and the kid and his family ought to know that. This seems to be collateral damage from having so few scholarships. If the NCAA wants to keep this charade of a rule going, they could put some deadline on it, say April 10, and make the players make the decision to go or not early enough that the school has at least a chance to replace the player. Forget the releases, and just put a deadline on it. My gut tells me what Martelli was ticked at was the timing and not the decision.

The court of public opinion ploy he played will not bode well for him in many career fields. The message of "give me what I want, or I will get you in the news" is not a great way to influence future employers. I don't buy for a minute that this was academic. He was trying to squeeze another year of basketball and used academics to press the issue.
 

Holy Man said:
leaving St. Joe's short one seven footer and virtually no chance of finding a scholarship player to replace him the next season.
Click to expand...
He was a backup who scored 1 point per game. A real vital cog in their plans.
Holy Man said:
I don't buy for a minute that this was academic. He was trying to squeeze another year of basketball and used academics to press the issue.
Click to expand...
Did you read the article? He admits that it was both. He never pretended getting to play more wasn't part of it.
 

Holy Man said:
St. Joe's can't win in this situation, but I have a hard time condemning them for not signing the release, especially if there was some implied agreement that he would be back for this season. The brighest red flag in the whole thing was his timing of departure. He walked at graduation, presumably mid to late May, and had not made a decision to leave. Sometime after that, he decides to bolt, leaving St. Joe's short one seven footer and virtually no chance of finding a scholarship player to replace him the next season. My gut tells me what Martelli was ticked at was the timing and not the decision.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on these thoughts. It appears that O'Brien did not tell the school about his change of heart until late July. Perhaps he first wanted to make sure they paid for his required summer courses so that he could graduate before telling them.

One of the strangest things about this conversation (again, not talking about this thread, but this topic being discussed by many people) is that my reading of 14.5.5.2.10(b) tells me that O'Brien isn't a candidate for the one-time exception that would allow him to immediately play at a new school, even if St. Joe's didn't object.

I'd find it hilarious if St. Joe's said, "OK, we are checking the box.. we do not object!"... and then the NCAA said, "OK. Todd, St. Joe's is OK with this, but we are denying you a waiver to play immediately because the rules state that you can't... thanks and goodbye!"

Edit: I realize this kid's attorney has said, "it could be immediately reopened by the NCAA staff in the morning and he could be eligible in the afternoon. We've already had that conversation with the compliance department at UAB and at the NCAA level (if St. Joe's didn't object)", but there are a lot of idiots out there who misunderstanding simple things. My hope is now that St. Joe's approves it and the NCAA says no. That is what I desire for Christmas.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
I'm with you on these thoughts. It appears that O'Brien did not tell the school about his change of heart until late July. Perhaps he first wanted to make sure they paid for his required summer courses so that he could graduate before telling them.

One of the strangest things about this conversation (again, not talking about this thread, but this topic being discussed by many people) is that my reading of 14.5.5.2.10(b) tells me that O'Brien isn't a candidate for the one-time exception that would allow him to immediately play at a new school, even if St. Joe's didn't object.

I'd find it hilarious if St. Joe's said, "OK, we are checking the box.. we do not object!"... and then the NCAA said, "OK. Todd, St. Joe's is OK with this, but we are denying you a waiver to play immediately because the rules state that you can't... thanks and goodbye!"

Edit: I realize this kid's attorney has said, "it could be immediately reopened by the NCAA staff in the morning and he could be eligible in the afternoon. We've already had that conversation with the compliance department at UAB and at the NCAA level (if St. Joe's didn't object)", but there are a lot of idiots out there who misunderstanding simple things. My hope is now that St. Joe's approves it and the NCAA says no. That is what I desire for Christmas.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is an additional waiver he can file with the NCAA. But they won't be able to consider that waiver until the St. Joe's mess is dealt with. And that fact still doesn't change the fact that being vindictive like St. Joe's is being is pointless and stupid.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
I'm with you on these thoughts. It appears that O'Brien did not tell the school about his change of heart until late July. Perhaps he first wanted to make sure they paid for his required summer courses so that he could graduate before telling them.

One of the strangest things about this conversation (again, not talking about this thread, but this topic being discussed by many people) is that my reading of 14.5.5.2.10(b) tells me that O'Brien isn't a candidate for the one-time exception that would allow him to immediately play at a new school, even if St. Joe's didn't object.

I'd find it hilarious if St. Joe's said, "OK, we are checking the box.. we do not object!"... and then the NCAA said, "OK. Todd, St. Joe's is OK with this, but we are denying you a waiver to play immediately because the rules state that you can't... thanks and goodbye!"

Edit: I realize this kid's attorney has said, "it could be immediately reopened by the NCAA staff in the morning and he could be eligible in the afternoon. We've already had that conversation with the compliance department at UAB and at the NCAA level (if St. Joe's didn't object)", but there are a lot of idiots out there who misunderstanding simple things. My hope is now that St. Joe's approves it and the NCAA says no. That is what I desire for Christmas.
Click to expand...
You're forgetting that O'Brien called the NCAA, and they told him multiple times he was eligible to use this rule. Either way this is incredibly stupid of the school to do. It's like being upset that the guy at your office that only contributes by making a copy once a day is deciding to leave to go somewhere he will be able to make a larger contribution.
 

zambam said:
You're forgetting that O'Brien called the NCAA, and they told him multiple times he was eligible to use this rule. Either way this is incredibly stupid of the school to do. It's like being upset that the guy at your office that only contributes by making a copy once a day is deciding to leave to go somewhere he will be able to make a larger contribution.
Click to expand...

No, his attorney has said they've approached the topic several times with the "compliance department" at UAB and at "the NCAA level" and claims that O'Brien would be cleared to play within a matter of hours if St. Joseph's withdraws their objection. I'm suggesting he may have bad information or may be inappropriately interpreting information he's been given.

I've spent little time with this one and I'll put a disclaimer here that my thoughts may change, but where I'm strongly leaning:

1) Todd O'Brien is... not a guy I'd want in my program.
2) St. Joe's was put in a difficult position. Would have been easier to not object. However, I can't find much fault in what they have done in this situation other than from a PR standpoint.
3) The kid isn't eligible for the one time transfer exception due to 14.5.5.2.10(b) (he transferred from Bucknell to St. Joseph's previously). I still don't see him being able to play for UAB even if St. Joe's had not objected. Refer back to 1).
 

Gopher Warrior said:
No, his attorney has said they've approached the topic several times with the "compliance department" at UAB and at "the NCAA level" and claims that O'Brien would be cleared to play within a matter of hours if St. Joseph's withdraws their objection. I'm suggesting he may have bad information or may be inappropriately interpreting information he's been given.

I've spent little time with this one and I'll put a disclaimer here that my thoughts may change, but where I'm strongly leaning:

1) Todd O'Brien is... not a guy I'd want in my program.
2) St. Joe's was put in a difficult position. Would have been easier to not object. However, I can't find much fault in what they have done in this situation other than from a PR standpoint.
3) The kid isn't eligible for the one time transfer exception due to 14.5.5.2.10(b) (he transferred from Bucknell to St. Joseph's previously). I still don't see him being able to play for UAB even if St. Joe's had not objected. Refer back to 1).
Click to expand...
From where I sit #1 is pretty clearly setting up your opinion for #2. Which is fine, that's your prerogative. I don't care about O'Brien as a player one way or the other. As I see it, the kid wants to move on, you let him. Regardless of the "truth" of his quality as a teammate (which isn't established and is subject to debate) it's BS that the school can hold this process up just because it wants to. They didn't even provide a reason for why they aren't allowing it. At the very least they should be forced to call out the reason they won't sign the thing. The fact that they won't doesn't speak too highly of them.

#3 is a separate issue entirely. If the NCAA wants to deny the transfer on procedural grounds related to his previous transfer and wants to deny the subsequent waiver that this kid will file then ok. It's their arcane rule structure and they can enforce it. But this "well, the school didn't sign the form" BS is what is wrong.
 

GoAUpher said:
They didn't even provide a reason for why they aren't allowing it. At the very least they should be forced to call out the reason they won't sign the thing. The fact that they won't doesn't speak too highly of them.

#3 is a separate issue entirely. If the NCAA wants to deny the transfer on procedural grounds related to his previous transfer and wants to deny the subsequent waiver that this kid will file then ok. It's their arcane rule structure and they can enforce it. But this "well, the school didn't sign the form" BS is what is wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the process and what has happened (i.e., the "facts").

By the way,

"14.5.5.2.10.1 Hearing Opportunity. If the student’s previous institution denies his or her written
request for the release, the institution shall inform the student-athlete in writing that he or she, upon
written request, shall be provided a hearing conducted by an institutional entity or committee outside
of the athletics department (e.g., the office of student affairs; office of the dean of students; or a committee
composed of the faculty athletics representative, student-athletes and nonathletics faculty/staff
members). The institution shall conduct the hearing and provide written results of the hearing to the
student-athlete within 15 business days (see Bylaw 14.02.2) of receipt of the student-athlete’s written
request for a hearing. The student-athlete shall be provided the opportunity to actively participate (e.g.,
in person, via telephone) in the hearing. If the institution fails to conduct the hearing or provide the
written results to the student-athlete within 15 business days, the release shall be granted by default and
the institution shall provide a written release to the student-athlete."
 

Gopher Warrior said:
I don't think you understand the process and what has happened (i.e., the "facts").

By the way,

"14.5.5.2.10.1 Hearing Opportunity. If the student’s previous institution denies his or her written
request for the release, the institution shall inform the student-athlete in writing that he or she, upon
written request, shall be provided a hearing conducted by an institutional entity or committee outside
of the athletics department (e.g., the office of student affairs; office of the dean of students; or a committee
composed of the faculty athletics representative, student-athletes and nonathletics faculty/staff
members). The institution shall conduct the hearing and provide written results of the hearing to the
student-athlete within 15 business days (see Bylaw 14.02.2) of receipt of the student-athlete’s written
request for a hearing. The student-athlete shall be provided the opportunity to actively participate (e.g.,
in person, via telephone) in the hearing. If the institution fails to conduct the hearing or provide the
written results to the student-athlete within 15 business days, the release shall be granted by default and
the institution shall provide a written release to the student-athlete."
Click to expand...

Umm hmm...so what reason is St. Joe's using to deny the request? Nowhere in what you list does it say that they have to explain themselves. They left that part of the initial form blank and I've yet to see anyone point to the listed reason from any other source either. If they have a valid reason for denying the request they should share it.
 

Upon reflection though, they probably can't say anything because of student privacy laws. Thinking that through, I'm going back down my irateness and stick to my gut feeling. Just sign the form. If GW is right about the transfer issue (and I believe he is) then you make it the NCAA's issue. O'Brien can then apply for a waiver on the rule and (likely) be denied there too. If Todd O'Brien really is a bad teammate, why make this into a thing?

What bugs me is the simple fact that the school has the right to deny the move in the first place. It does open the door to shenanigans.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
2) St. Joe's was put in a difficult position. Would have been easier to not object. However, I can't find much fault in what they have done in this situation other than from a PR standpoint.
Click to expand...

How does their decision benefit St. Joseph's in any way? I don't think it was a difficult decision at all. The kid was not going to play for them ever again no matter if they checked it or not. You're essentially saying that it's okay for a coach, program, and school to act like a 12 year old because O'Brien did it first.

I have no problem with them being ticked off and feel disrespected though. That's understandable.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
I don't know all the facts, but tend to think people are siding way too heavily with the kid. (not in this thread, but speaking on the general take by others I've seen early on.)

St. Joe's is playing by the rules. The risk is bad pub, as well as future players wondering if the school is going to be jerky about transferring or other issues in the future. If they are OK with that, then do what you gotta.

My read is all parties here are acting like jerks. I look at the timeline of the kid's "story", including some missing pieces, as well as the *laptop issue* he had and realize there are some additional perspectives we can't see. The rule (specifically the option for the former school to object to the immediate playing time exception) is there for a reason, is it not? I need to understand why the rule is there. If it's so schools can do what St. Joe's is doing, then people should whine to the NCAA.

In general, the grad transfer rule is probably flawed. The intention is wonderful and the lipstick on it that says, 'this is all about academics' is cute, but not real. Soon enough, many will grow as tired of grad transfers as they are tired of one-and-dones.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom