Daniels Twins decommit

Donate To GopherHole
A lot of these "kids" are already 18 if not turning. 18 in the next few months. That's an adult by most standards.
 

These should have no concern about changing their mind, schools slow recruit and change direction on kids all the time. Not to mention a letter in of intent obligates a kid to a school for 4 years; a school to a kid 1 year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

oleboy41 said:
You guys sound like the oldest, whiniest, most miserable people. Kids post on social media. You lames are the one actually reading the things they write to their high school friends. They're in high school. High school kids love everything they're involved with until they don't. In college every year I joked that when you see a freshman girl with more than one other girl she's walking with at least one of her future sworn enemies as every girl freshman girl crew splintered within a year. You're essentially mad at high school kids for being high school kids and the ONLY reason you're paying any attention to them is because they were saying they wanted to go to your favorite school. Get over it and stop demonizing kids because YOU don't like their decisions. If you've got beef with kids talking on Twitter then simply ignore all of it. You don't have to follow them, you don't have to read threads about their every phone call and visit, and you don't have to get caught up in the recruiting process. Instead you choose to hop on the train while complaining about it like babies
Click to expand...

Well said and I couldn't agree more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24 said:
These should have no concern about changing their mind, schools slow recruit and change direction on kids all the time. Not to mention a letter in of intent obligates a kid to a school for 4 years; a school to a kid 1 year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Since you had a son who recently played, I'm curious what your thought is on the scholarship and transfer rules. How would you change the rules?
 

GophersInIowa said:
Since you had a son who recently played, I'm curious what your thought is on the scholarship and transfer rules. How would you change the rules?
Click to expand...

Should be the same as the coaches (no rules). Barring that if you are not on scholarship you should be able to go wherever they are willing to except you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Sportsfan24 said:
Should be the same as the coaches (no rules). Barring that if you are not on scholarship you should be able to go wherever they are willing to except you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What about if you are on the team and already on scholarship?
 

GophersInIowa said:
What about if you are on the team and already on scholarship?
Click to expand...

Scholarships are renewed annually. Players should be able to transfer annually. Asst Coaches are usually on 1-year contracts; they are able to take "better" opportunities at that point. Head coaches are able to come and go pretty much whenever they want same for AD's and the school President. Trainers and the entire supporting staff are able to come and go. The student body can transfer, fans can end and start school allegiances when they want, why shouldn't players?

The excuse given is that there would be chaos; probable would be.....from the coaches and schools. It is inherently unfair...un-American to deny liberties to a group of people while allowing those liberties to the group who would cause the problems folks are concerned about.

What would actually happen IMO? Only folks actually harmed would be players who lose scholarships at the lowest level of college football (they could play D3 but no scholarship). The elite teams would lose depth. Players not playing but capable of playing somewhere else would do so (think Russell Wilson). Balancing classes is an art form (ask Tim Brewster) schools would not be marshaling in transfers every year, some may not do it at all (think Juco transfers).

Most players not playing would be content providing depth....and remaining on scholarship (scholarships the schools are holding for that years recruitment class). Players aren't stupid or willing to take the risk of transferring to another school.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24 said:
Scholarships are renewed annually. Players should be able to transfer annually. Asst Coaches are usually on 1-year contracts; they are able to take "better" opportunities at that point. Head coaches are able to come and go pretty much whenever they want same for AD's and the school President. Trainers and the entire supporting staff are able to come and go. The student body can transfer, fans can end and start school allegiances when they want, why shouldn't players?

The excuse given is that there would be chaos; probable would be.....from the coaches and schools. It is inherently unfair...un-American to deny liberties to a group of people while allowing those liberties to the group who would cause the problems folks are concerned about.

What would actually happen IMO? Only folks actually harmed would be players who lose scholarships at the lowest level of college football (they could play D3 but no scholarship). The elite teams would lose depth. Players not playing but capable of playing somewhere else would do so (think Russell Wilson). Balancing classes is an art form (ask Tim Brewster) schools would not be marshaling in transfers every year, some may not do it at all (think Juco transfers).

Most players not playing would be content providing depth....and remaining on scholarship (scholarships the schools are holding for that years recruitment class). Players aren't stupid or willing to take the risk of transferring to another school.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. The schools should make scholarships 4 year guarantees (with huge exceptions for failing out and criminal activity). Either that, or the school should be able to offer as many years guaranteed as they want and the kid can do what he wants when that scholarship is up.

It would create chaos in college football but it would actually be fair.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
Scholarships are renewed annually. Players should be able to transfer annually. Asst Coaches are usually on 1-year contracts; they are able to take "better" opportunities at that point. Head coaches are able to come and go pretty much whenever they want same for AD's and the school President. Trainers and the entire supporting staff are able to come and go. The student body can transfer, fans can end and start school allegiances when they want, why shouldn't players?

The excuse given is that there would be chaos; probable would be.....from the coaches and schools. It is inherently unfair...un-American to deny liberties to a group of people while allowing those liberties to the group who would cause the problems folks are concerned about.

What would actually happen IMO? Only folks actually harmed would be players who lose scholarships at the lowest level of college football (they could play D3 but no scholarship). The elite teams would lose depth. Players not playing but capable of playing somewhere else would do so (think Russell Wilson). Balancing classes is an art form (ask Tim Brewster) schools would not be marshaling in transfers every year, some may not do it at all (think Juco transfers).

Most players not playing would be content providing depth....and remaining on scholarship (scholarships the schools are holding for that years recruitment class). Players aren't stupid or willing to take the risk of transferring to another school.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

IMO this policy protects players from themselves as much as it protects the schools. These kids already come in with hyper inflated ego's if you add to that the ability to jump ship at the first sign of adversity with no consequences and you can turn a situation where a kid gets benched by a coach as a teaching moment into the start of a revolving door where the kid chases after a spot on a team where a coach takes him as is rather than growing up.
 



Bob_Loblaw said:
I actually agree with this. The schools should make scholarships 4 year guarantees (with huge exceptions for failing out and criminal activity). Either that, or the school should be able to offer as many years guaranteed as they want and the kid can do what he wants when that scholarship is up.

It would create chaos in college football but it would actually be fair.
Click to expand...

I believe their are some schools that do this. Auburn being one of them
 

minibeaver said:
I believe their are some schools that do this. Auburn being one of them
Click to expand...

The B1G guarantees scholarships (from 2014) :

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/s...ntees-four-year-scholarships-student-athletes


The Big Ten announced Wednesday that all of its institutions will grant athletic scholarships for the entire term of an athlete's enrollment and allow some athletes who leave school to return and finish their degrees on scholarship.

Scholarships will be "neither reduced nor cancelled" as long as athletes maintain good standing in school, within the athletic department and in the community. If athletes leave school for "a bona fide reason," they will be allowed to return at a later date to complete their degrees on scholarship.

Several individual Big Ten schools had announced similar scholarship initiatives for athletes, but the league felt a policy statement was needed after its athletic directors, senior woman administrators and faculty representatives met Monday and Tuesday at league headquarters.
 

This will not help the issue of losing a ton of juniors and seniors in CFB but I like it.
 

minibeaver said:
I believe their are some schools that do this. Auburn being one of them
Click to expand...

I thought the B1G did this as a conference. Just as with employment contracts they are always subject to maintaining good standing (academics, legally) akin to being able to fire with cause.

I agree that the transfer policy is somewhat protective of players as well, as there has to be some disincentive to having programs plunder other schools' student-athletes like they are free agents. You might say they're technically adults, but in a high stakes game like this they are still kids in school. And they don't have the benefit of having agents like NFL players just a few years older.
 



Yeah my bad guys. Now that you mention it I remember this coming out. I think Auburn was one of the first to do it though, at least in the SEC.
 

With all due respect to 24, I think having all College FB players function as de facto free agents would be a mess.

If players were free to transfer with no restrictions, it would next to impossible for coaches to manage rosters and plan for next year. Coach A could think he's set at DB, and then 2 starters decide to transfer, and they're scrambling to fill holes.

How about this - a one-time only opt-out clause: players who want to transfer could do so once during their varsity career. that would give players some flexibility without causing too much havoc on the game.
 

LakerFan said:
IMO this policy protects players from themselves as much as it protects the schools. These kids already come in with hyper inflated ego's if you add to that the ability to jump ship at the first sign of adversity with no consequences and you can turn a situation where a kid gets benched by a coach as a teaching moment into the start of a revolving door where the kid chases after a spot on a team where a coach takes him as is rather than growing up.
Click to expand...

So now its the job of football programs to implement their idea of honor and 'growing up' by 'protecting' kids from making poor choices? Why then shouldn't that be implemented for the entire student body? Why can the random English major transfer when he gets homesick or has a miserable year or decides he wants something different but the football player can't? That policy doesn't protect players from anything, it protects schools and coaches by preventing their labor force from having freedom of movement when that labor force isn't happy with what they're getting in return. The coach can take the kid that said he ONLY wanted to play RB and move him to DB knowing that the kids only choices are to accept it or transfer knowing he won't be able to play for at least a year.
 

oleboy41 said:
So now its the job of football programs to implement their idea of honor and 'growing up' by 'protecting' kids from making poor choices? Why then shouldn't that be implemented for the entire student body? Why can the random English major transfer when he gets homesick or has a miserable year or decides he wants something different but the football player can't? That policy doesn't protect players from anything, it protects schools and coaches by preventing their labor force from having freedom of movement when that labor force isn't happy with what they're getting in return. The coach can take the kid that said he ONLY wanted to play RB and move him to DB knowing that the kids only choices are to accept it or transfer knowing he won't be able to play for at least a year.
Click to expand...

That English major more than likely is paying for his education.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
Scholarships are renewed annually. Players should be able to transfer annually. Asst Coaches are usually on 1-year contracts; they are able to take "better" opportunities at that point. Head coaches are able to come and go pretty much whenever they want same for AD's and the school President. Trainers and the entire supporting staff are able to come and go. The student body can transfer, fans can end and start school allegiances when they want, why shouldn't players?

The excuse given is that there would be chaos; probable would be.....from the coaches and schools. It is inherently unfair...un-American to deny liberties to a group of people while allowing those liberties to the group who would cause the problems folks are concerned about.

What would actually happen IMO? Only folks actually harmed would be players who lose scholarships at the lowest level of college football (they could play D3 but no scholarship). The elite teams would lose depth. Players not playing but capable of playing somewhere else would do so (think Russell Wilson). Balancing classes is an art form (ask Tim Brewster) schools would not be marshaling in transfers every year, some may not do it at all (think Juco transfers).

Most players not playing would be content providing depth....and remaining on scholarship (scholarships the schools are holding for that years recruitment class). Players aren't stupid or willing to take the risk of transferring to another school.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thanks for the perspective. I think it would still help the helmet schools more than anyone else. You're right, the elite teams would lose depth because guys who are stuck behind another player could move on to a place they could be playing. But at the same time, I think many schools could lose their best players to the elite schools. If you're a good TE and you know an Alabama or Clemson doesn't have one right now, many will go somewhere where they know they'll still play a lot and could win a National Championship.

In my opinion, there should be something in the middle. How about a player is given a guaranteed 2-year scholarship out of high school. After the two years are up, the school can either renew the scholarship for the remainder of their career or decide not to. At the same time, the player can turn down the scholarship offer from the school and transfer anywhere he wants without having to sit out a year.
 

LakerFan said:
IMO this policy protects players from themselves as much as it protects the schools. These kids already come in with hyper inflated ego's if you add to that the ability to jump ship at the first sign of adversity with no consequences and you can turn a situation where a kid gets benched by a coach as a teaching moment into the start of a revolving door where the kid chases after a spot on a team where a coach takes him as is rather than growing up.
Click to expand...

I would have to vehemently disagree; your whole argument is based on a faulty assumption that kids have hyper inflated ego's. Even if it were true that would only be inflated by those who follow football.....us. Therefore it would be our fault and our ability to control.

In addition kids get benched for many more reasons than teaching moments. Sometimes they get benched because they were not a recruit of the current coaching staff (DO NOT READ ANYTHING INTO THAT COMMENT) or they are in the wrong class. Brewster may still be the coach if he would have never played Adam Weber (also applies to other players) and went with a younger QB...one who would have been experienced in year 4.

My point is there are a multitude of reasons kids play and some don't and not all of them have anything to do with who is the better player.
 

Question about early signing periods (have to go with basketball because they have early signing). If a player signs during that period and a coach gets fired and said player wants to leave, do they need to handle like a transfer? Get released from their scholarship and then pick a school or can they just say want out and away they go?
 

NDGoopher said:
Question about early signing periods (have to go with basketball because they have early signing). If a player signs during that period and a coach gets fired and said player wants to leave, do they need to handle like a transfer? Get released from their scholarship and then pick a school or can they just say want out and away they go?
Click to expand...

Sounds like a veiled Pitino question? I wondered the same thing.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
With all due respect to 24, I think having all College FB players function as de facto free agents would be a mess.

If players were free to transfer with no restrictions, it would next to impossible for coaches to manage rosters and plan for next year. Coach A could think he's set at DB, and then 2 starters decide to transfer, and they're scrambling to fill holes.

How about this - a one-time only opt-out clause: players who want to transfer could do so once during their varsity career. that would give players some flexibility without causing too much havoc on the game.
Click to expand...

For the reasons I stated, I don't believe there would be that many additional transfers. There just would not be that many schools wanting to bring players in for less than 2 seasons and players would more than 2 seasons would most likely not be proven players.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
For the reasons I stated, I don't believe there would be that many additional transfers. There just would not be that many schools wanting to bring players in for less than 2 seasons and players would more than 2 seasons would most likely not be proven players.
Click to expand...

You will see a lot more instances like Russell Wilson and Vernon Adams except they won't have to be a redshirt senior. Top players at lesser programs will go to an elite school that they know needs someone at their position.
 

As long as the transferring player had to sit out a season (almost like High School open enrollment), I don't think it would be that big of a deal if players could freely transfer.
 

Sportsfan24 said:
For the reasons I stated, I don't believe there would be that many additional transfers. There just would not be that many schools wanting to bring players in for less than 2 seasons and players would more than 2 seasons would most likely not be proven players.
Click to expand...

FWIW: Women's volleyball gets by with allowing transfers to play immediately. It worked well for the Gophers a few years ago when setter, Taylor Carico, decided to transfer from Southern Cal before her senior season. Southern Cal was installing a different offense and Carico transferred to Minnesota which fit her style. Carico was the setter for a Final Four season.
 

Dr.Don said:
Wait! What? How the hell does one know if he doesn't agree with one's post unless he reads the damned thing.
Click to expand...

One way is look at the screen name. There are a couple of folks on GH I can pretty much guarantee I'm not going to like what they post. Conversely, there are some I look forward to reading.
 

minibeaver said:
That English major more than likely is paying for his education.
Click to expand...

That English major is paying far less than the football player.

The U spent less than 7 million on its football team. The football team brought in 15-25 million.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Sportsfan24 said:
That English major is paying far less than the football player.

The U spent less than 7 million on its football team. The football team brought in 15-25 million.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Your second statement, if true, might indicate that the football player may deserve some additional compensation (if the market dictated it - but as of now it doesn't...we just want to watch football, and the players are ultimately replaceable and irrelevant. Harsh, but true) - but it really has nothing to do with the out-and-out falsehood of your first statement. The football player is paying less than the academic student.
 


GopherHomer said:
Incorrect.

Your second statement, if true, might indicate that the football player may deserve some additional compensation (if the market dictated it - but as of now it doesn't...we just want to watch football, and the players are ultimately replaceable and irrelevant. Harsh, but true) - but it really has nothing to do with the out-and-out falsehood of your first statement. The football player is paying less than the academic student.
Click to expand...

You ever try watching college football with no players?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom