Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

0 (0%)

No

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: October 22, 2020, 02:05:59 PM

[whiskeypriest]

Big 12 commish: All transfers should sit one year:


https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/26948342/big-12-commish-all-transfers-sit-one-year


...Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said Tuesday he believes all student-athletes who want to transfer should sit out one year, with no exceptions. ...


Careful Bobby, or you'll have Stevo accusing you of being Marcus Licinius Crassus.


Spartacus SPARTACUS SPARTACUS!

How about also: a team cannot fill the scholarship for a year either.

[Yankguy1]

Next time one of his schools signs a coach working for another program Bowlsby should be asked if that coach should sit out year.

[Espnthree]

Next time one of his schools signs a coach working for another program Bowlsby should be asked if that coach should sit out year.

Nicely done.

[CaptainCargo]

Next time one of his schools signs a coach working for another program Bowlsby should be asked if that coach should sit out year.

I see you connect amateur sports with a professional job. Connecting them with empirical facts that connect them. Not comparisons, facts, might be a bit difficult.

I'm all ears.

[Yankguy1]

The professional job is connected to amateur sports which is the problem. I'll provide the same empircal data that Bowlsby did. Both coaches and players make commitments. Apparently Bowlsby (and you) feel that only players should pay a price for breaking them.

[CaptainCargo]

So you don't have any facts. Okay.

I understand your point, and even to a point sympathize with it. But only to a point.

I'll add that lots of coaches have buyout clauses in the contracts they sign. In other words a penalty, maybe you didn't see the penalty so I'll point it out. Lots of others, not head coaches only have one year contracts and renew them every year. So the only thing I see in common is a penalty that each can be accessed with. 

But, IMO there is no actual and factual connection between an amateur athlete and a professional coach.

[Yankguy1]

 What kind of facts are you looking for? I believe that coaches who break their commitments to the kids they've recruited should face the same ramifications as the kids who do so. By definition that's an opinion.

[CaptainCargo]

I'm looking for a fact that connects a professional adult "job", with an amateur playing a "game".

Look as I might I can't find one.


And the kids were recruited to play a game and get a free academic ride. I don't see why they should worry who the coach is. They'll have a coach every year they're there. I don't think the schools will make them play without coaching. If a professor in math leaves I'm fairly sure the University will find another one to replace him.

[Yankguy1]

?

[CaptainCargo]

??

[Espnthree]

?

So are we all.

[whiskeypriest]

So you don't have any facts. Okay.

I understand your point, and even to a point sympathize with it. But only to a point.

I'll add that lots of coaches have buyout clauses in the contracts they sign. In other words a penalty, maybe you didn't see the penalty so I'll point it out. Lots of others, not head coaches only have one year contracts and renew them every year. So the only thing I see in common is a penalty that each can be accessed with. 

But, IMO there is no actual and factual connection between an amateur athlete and a professional coach.

That "penalty" is in all instances paid by boosters from the team hiring the coach.

The coach can leave, the school can yank a scholarship. The only one you want to bind is an 19, 20 year old kid sold the moon by coach or who wants a better chance to develop his talents. Row, serf! Row!

[CaptainCargo]

So what, the guy is a professional. He's earned it. A buy out is a buyout. Without it the coach leaving probably would have gotten some if not all of that cash too. It's a penalty, as he didn't get it. GET it? But it was "in" the contract. Something agreed on. If and when the transfer rules change the recruits will know about the new rule before they sign. It won't be kept a secret from them. I would however be in favor of if the rules change I would be in favor of any kid who was recruited under the old rule get grandfathered to the rule they originally signed with.


And once again your weak point is that schools can yank a scholarship. That's been covered. But since your memory is short I'll refresh it. That rarely happens except for good reason. Usually the player has done a bad thing.

And coaches can be fired, not just for being bad but for not producing. Players that don't produce rarely lose their scholarship. They just sit the bench.

[CaptainCargo]

?

So are we all.

You couldn't find your dick even if you were already holding onto it Skippy. Which you probably are.

If you ever had an original thought it would die of loneliness.

[Espnthree]

?

So are we all.

You couldn't find your dick even if you were already holding onto it Skippy. Which you probably are.

If you ever had an original thought it would die of loneliness.

I think I will remain on the High Road with YankGuy.
The gutter is all yours.