Goose wrote:I'm not exactly sure of the rules in this case? Does the kid have to sit out a year since he signed a letter of intent, or can he enroll at another D-1 school and play immediately since he did not start classes? If he does not have to sit out, my guess is if he signed his letter of intent then BG would have to release him from his scholarship in order for him to be able to play right away.BleedOrange wrote:Nah. Let these 18 year old children do and say whatever they want. It's too much to actually expect them to do things like show a little fortitude, accept responsibility, and face new challenges. They'll grow up soon enough.
Regardless of the rules, there is more responsibility that has to be accepted by a player who decides to transfer then there is for a coach who backs out of a signed contract. A player that transfers to another D-1 school has to sit out a year. What kind of punishment does a coach get when he backs out of a contract and leaves for another school? It seems to me that the player is held to a higher standard by having to sit out a year.
Taken a step further, what would happen to an adult who leaves their job to go work at another company? Do they have to sit out a year? Just like this player who is "screwing up that schools roster", when you leave a job you are putting your former employer in a bad position. They have to hire somebody new, train them, get them up to speed, etc. These kids are being held to a higher standard then we are, and you guys are trying to say that they should have more severe penalties?
The kid came here and for whatever reason he changed his mind and decided he is going somewhere else. If you don't think he has to accept as much or more responsibility then others who change their mind in similar situations in our society then you are crazy! These things happen with adults and they certainly happen with eighteen-year-old kids who are away from home for the first time. It happens with kids on athletic scholarships and it happens with students who aren't on an athletic scholarship. The kid isn't committing any crime, so how do you figure they should be punished more severely then anybody else that changes their mind about something?
I'm just as disappointed as anyone else at all the transfers coming out of this program. After hearing about this recruiting class and then finding out that one of the top recruits will not be coming here, I was disappointed about that too. However, if a kid doesn't want to be here they have the right to go elsewhere. They also have to face consequences for making this decision that you or I don't necessarily have to face. To insinuate that they should have to pay a more severe penalty for making a decision that you wish they didn't make is absurd. If a kid doesn't want to play for BG, then I don't want them here no matter how talented they are, and I think coach Dakich and every other coach in America would tell you the same thing. Let the kid go and move on without him!
Goose, you make a good point about coaches leaving programs with impunity while transfers must sit a year. That situation has existed for a long time, is unfair to players, and doesn't seem to be acknowledged as a problem by the NCAA.
I don't recall anyone insinuating anything about penalties. What Holland (and others) did was lame, plain and simple. I'm simply pointing it out, and I hope that my kids grow up to have more spine than that. Was he within his rights? Yes, but that's a different point. Older adults flip on their word and fail commitments, and they can be weak too. A work example that actually compares to the Holland situation is when a company hires a person, quits their search, allows other candidates to go to other companies, spends money training the new person, and then the new person then for a company in a better weather area. That's generally legal, but is weak as well. I guess that where this comparison is the weakest is in the fact that a company hires a person solely for the purpose of increasing profit, ultimately. A school offers a kid a scholarship for the sake of athletic competition, representing the university, and winning games. The ideals are different.
No doubt, if a kid doesn't want to be part of a program, the program is better off without him. I'm wondering if players accept scholarships less forethought and respect than in years past. More and more, school choices seem to be made somewhat frivolously. (..oooh, I'm getting old...) Currently, we're 6 for 7. That's ok.
