“Team policy. That’s it. The NCAA has the in-conference policy for a reason.”

I’m sure most of y’all know how coaches can screw with players on scholarship wanting to transfer.  But did you know they can jam up walk-ons, too?  Well, they can, and it’s as appalling as you might expect.

About these ads

24 Comments

Filed under College Football

24 responses to ““Team policy. That’s it. The NCAA has the in-conference policy for a reason.”

  1. DawgPhan

    Essentially there is no penalty for behaving like this and no reward for going the CMR route and helping players move down the road.

    Guessing that the media will hammer CKK for a little bit, but nothing significant.

    • DawgPhan

      Well I wasn’t even right about the media hammering him. Espn just tweeted a video of kliff reading tweets from fans.

  2. Dog in Fla

    Galatians 6:7
    7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/75531/large/French_aristocracy.jpg?1396192364

  3. Macallanlover

    I support not allowing transfers to any conference team, or anyone on the team’s announced schedule to play during the athlete’s period of eligibility.

    • DawgPhan

      Of course you do.

    • For a walk-on you didn’t care enough about to award a scholarship in the first place? Nice.

    • Connor

      I support allowing players to initiate contact with any school about the possibility of a transfer at any time, and to be able to transfer to any school at any time.

      • Dog in Fla

        That comment shows little or no respect to the moneychangers. Other than Zacchaeus, what’s up with that?

      • AusDawg85

        So a 9 – 0 team can suddenly get some favorable transfers from star players to finish the stretch drive to the playoffs? Just imagine Auburrn with this rule.

        • Connor

          It’s an option in every other professional sport.

          • Hackerdog

            No, other sports have contracts that mutually benefits players and management. A Braves pitcher can’t announce that he’s going to play for the Nationals for the last month of the season in the hopes of winning a championship. The Braves have to release him from his contract, ala Dan Uggla. And even though the Braves released Uggla, they still owe him the bulk of his contractual salary.

            I would have no problem with college teams adopting that model. Instead of a scholarship that can be pulled at any time, put a kid under a 4-5 year contract/scholarship. If you release him, he’s free to go anywhere. If you don’t release him, you have to continue to give him the benefits of his contract/scholarship.

            • Macallanlover

              Your proposal in the 2nd paragraph is fair and balanced, something that should be considered. Since we treat ours as 4-5 year deals anyway, I feel we should be able to block future opponents though. Even good employment contracts have non-competes and dismissals for cause so a violation of agreed upon behavior would still allow the school some protection.

          • AusDawg85

            I was really poking fun and assume you don’t mean mid-season transfers. Generally, I would agree that IF a scholarship is only a one-year contract, then players should be able to freely move to another school within a set time frame to qualify academically, etc. But if the scholly is multi-year and accepted by the player, then restrictions should apply. I’m not aware of any sport that permits unfettered free agency at anytime other than some AAU basketball and select baseball leagues I’ve seen.

    • Dog in Fla

      I can see you’re a fan of the Old Testament

    • I’m glad Richt disagrees with you.

      • Cojones

        I liked the way Richt used a little pizazz to get around this falderal long ago. He helped transfer a 4-star recruit (that our Admissions/ Student Council fucked over) by picking a school(Ark) and telling the coach(Nutt) that he was available. They weren’t on our schedule that year, although we did play against Grant later. I thought that was as slick as owl shit.

  4. Cojones

    C’mon. This is wrong in every way. This is serfdom at it’s shittiest.

    So what happens if he plays with Ok’s blessing? Is the Big 12 going to forfeit games that he plays in? I think not and that player and University should thumb their noses at any entity that differs. This kid should play before Dorial-Green ever steps on the field. Is that action hypocrisy or does that separate the chaff from the wheat concerning this Fing rule?

    Many times change occurs if you just have the cojones to oppose. The route from half-coked to coked is more heat.

  5. 69Dawg

    Do these aholes not realize that they are giving the Antitrust plaintiffs actual ammo for their lawsuit. Talk about thumbing your nose at the legal system and blindly hoping that the Congress covers your sorry butts. This is an attempt to restrain a person’s right to go anywhere they want. There is no contract with this player, there is no compensation (scholarship). The NCAA rules are bogus when applied to a walk-on. These people are lower than whale dung, and this is a great example of all that is wrong with college athletics.

  6. So basically TTU is saying “Not only are we not gonna give you a scholarship, we’re gonna make sure no one else can either.”

    Sounds like one of those high-school girls who doesn’t want to date the guy she’s “just good friends with,” but hangs on to him as a fallback if nobody better comes along.