If you’re not doing it for the kids, there’s only one other possible reason.

Or, you know, it could just be that Lincoln Riley is a flaming arsehole.


Filed under Transfers Are For Coaches.

24 responses to “If you’re not doing it for the kids, there’s only one other possible reason.

  1. charlottedawg

    I’m sure Lincoln would feel the same way if a star player from Texas or another big 12 rival wanted to transfer to Oklahoma and play right away. Just as I’m sure Lincoln would support restrictions on HIS ability to work for another big 12 school even if, no, especially if, it was for a more attractive job at another school within the conference. I mean all for what’s best for the game right?

    Big time college sports are so hypocritical and brazenly self interested it makes corporate america look like a bastion of fairness and forward thinking.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. spur21

    Wonder how he would respond if someone told him he had to sit a year if he changes jobs?

    Liked by 2 people

    • The Truth

      Exactly this^^^. Until coaches are ready to sit out a year if they decide to break a contract for greener pastures, they can all just fuck off on this issue.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Granthams Replacement

      His contract might have that language written in for big 12 schools. Plenty of coaches have buyout clauses that discourage changing jobs.


  3. akascuba

    Translates to if it`s bad for me the answer is always no. He would quickly change his mind if that applied to himself. Asshole move that recruits will see.


    • Down Island Way

      “He said it’s bad for the game.”…it does depend on what/which game you are speaking badly of/for…


  4. Greg

    SHAT!…..pay’em all, pay’em like the professionals. Let them transfer to wherever they want……but be sure that they can be cut whenever needed like the pros / put on waivers.

    Oh yeah, make’em pay for their tuition & room and board/meal plan…..or maybe just do away with CF and forget about the school….

    Liked by 1 person

    • TN Dawg

      Yes, the sport has already contracted the woke virus.

      It’s only a matter of time until liberalism kills it, like every other thing it touches.

      Look at the folks here trying to equate coaches to players, as if an 18 year old should have the same authority as his coach.

      I’ll wager none of these folks here apply the “boss is the same as the employee” routine at their own businesses/jobs.

      I’ll laugh the day one of their legal secretaries pads their hours for the phone call the boss made to them and says “well you do it, and if you get to do it, I get to do it.”

      Liked by 1 person

  5. siskey

    It is his adherence to the rules that make him such a better coach according to Mandel and Feldman in their rankings released yesterday.


  6. 69Dawg

    The fact that they can play without sitting for a year is not near as much of an advantage to the team getting them as the complete knowledge of the team they are leaving. Whether they play a down, they have been sitting in the position and team meetings and practicing. The information they carry with them can cause real problems for the team losing them.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Uh hunh. So why no similar prohibition on coaches?

      Liked by 1 person

    • bigjohnson1992

      Agree 100 percent. It’s called intellectual property theft in the real world. Lots of other schools out there to transfer to.


      • LMAO. Coaches can do it. Grad transfers can do it. What’s so special about the other kids?

        Liked by 1 person

        • reipar1

          I think it’s fine for grad transfers as they have finished their time. I think both coaches and players should have to sit out one year if they move in conference. If they move anywhere else then immediately eligible. Now if the player or coach is fired then they can go anywhere immediately.

          Liked by 1 person

          • TN Dawg

            So you don’t think it’s right to have tiers of rules that may differ among different positions.

            So like, should commenters here have the exact same latitude that the blog owner does?

            Or does being in a higher position of authority grant the blog owner different rules than the commenters?


  7. Comparing the coaches to the players is a disingenuous argument. Coaches are employees, under contracts they negotiate, and direct the action on the field, but obviously are not the competitors.

    Students are playing in a sport with rules. The sport is free to establish rules and they are transparent to the participants. They do not have negotiating rights and they are not employees. It’s fine if a participant wants to leave his school. It’s fine if a league wants to establish rules restricting transfers. These things can both exist, and while to some it does not seem “fair” it’s as fair as any of the other rules of competition.

    Unrestricted free agency really isn’t in the best interest of CFB, which has nothing to do…and should not be conflated with…other issues affecting the players off the field (e.g. NIL rights). Player compensation doesn’t impact the rules on the field. Nick Saban stacking players like cordwood to substitute on the field does fall directly under the rules of competition. IMHO.


    • You realize that Riley can’t stop the player from transferring, right? All he can do is block the player receiving a scholarship for a year.


      • I was simply making the case about restricting transfer eligibility as a legitimate rule of competition. The Conference leaving the decision up to the former HC to block a scholarship is stupid on multiple levels, but that’s the world of college sports these days, isn’t it?


  8. debbybalcer

    Didn’t he argue for Baker Mayfield to be eligible to play immediately for OU instead of sitting after transferring from Texas Tech?


    • miltondawg

      Maybe he did but I don’t recall that. Baker sat out the 2014 season because of the NCAA rule about transferring. Initially, Baker also lost a season of eligibility while sitting out in 2014 because of a Big 12 rule that if you transfer in conference you have to sit out a year AND lose a year of eligibility. It was a really weird situation though because in 2013 Baker was a walk on true freshman. He had still not been offered a scholarship by TT in January 2014 when he transferred. And TT didn’t play nice. They could have consented to Baker not losing a year of eligibility but they didn’t consent to that. The Big 12 amended their rule though so Baker got back the year of eligibility which is how he was still eligible in 2017 (they changed the rule so that walk ons could transfer in conference without losing eligibility if the team the player was leaving had not yet made a written offer to give the leaving player a scholarship).