Mallett wants waiver for transfer to Ark.

BeesballH1986

BeesballH1986

Flats Noob
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
773
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3232753

Arkansas is filing a waiver with the NCAA to allow Ryan Mallett to transfer without sitting out a year. The article says the waiver is based on "extenuating circumstances," and his father indicates that the circumstances are the Rich Rodriguez' system doesn't fit Mallett's talents.

I don't really have an opinion on this one way or the other, but it does seem to me that if the NCAA grants a waiver based on a system change, then they'd be hard pressed to not grant a waiver for any player, for almost any reason. Agree, disagree?
 
My opinion is that players should be allowed to transfer without sitting out a season if their original coach leaves because the head coach usually has a large influence on the college the player chooses in the first place.
 
I think players should be allowed to transfer without sitting out if a team changes coaches especially if the new coach is going to run a different system and the player is going to have to ride to pine when he could start else where.
 
i don't like that transfers have to sit out a year, but I guess that's where the business of college football comes in. Schools don't want to lose on their investments.
 
I thinkest they should sit out two years. This would stop all of the transfers that get their poor feelings hurt. They should commit to the school and not the coach. I wonder how much recruiting goes on for active players? Ala the one we just lost.
 
olgoldandwhite said:
I thinkest they should sit out two years. This would stop all of the transfers that get their poor feelings hurt. They should commit to the school and not the coach. I wonder how much recruiting goes on for active players? Ala the one we just lost.
Click to expand...

That just doesnt make sense. Yea it sucks we lost a guy, but when a school changes their offense, meaning you wont even get to play as a starter ever, that is reason to transfer. I am obviously talking about Mallett. You gotta look at it from his perspective. These kids arent diehard students, they are diehard athletes. Most athletes dont pick a school to get a great education. They pick a school that is going to showcase them to make it to the next level.
 
He might want to keep a copy of it-- he might be filling out the same waiver when Petrino goes someplace else in a year or two...
 
I have to agree with allowing a transfer without having to sit - IF there is a change in the type of offense/defense the new coach will run. Sure, kids should commit to the school - not the coach. BUT when the new coach plans to use a type of offense the current players can't be utilized in, the player's football future is jeopardized. What NFL team wants a guy that's been riding the bench for his last two years?
 
GTWannaBee said:
I have to agree with allowing a transfer without having to sit - IF there is a change in the type of offense/defense the new coach will run. Sure, kids should commit to the school - not the coach. BUT when the new coach plans to use a type of offense the current players can't be utilized in, the player's football future is jeopardized. What NFL team wants a guy that's been riding the bench for his last two years?
Click to expand...

People always say this, and I have never understood it. From all accounts, doesn't your coach become the person with the greatest impact on your life during your college career? Isn't he supposed to mentor you and prepare you for life after college, be it in the NFL or (in most cases) a different profession? It seems to me that I would not want to enter in to such an important relationship with a random person, one who you might not like or might not think is the best option to prepare you for life.
 
GTWannaBee said:
I have to agree with allowing a transfer without having to sit - IF there is a change in the type of offense/defense the new coach will run. Sure, kids should commit to the school - not the coach. BUT when the new coach plans to use a type of offense the current players can't be utilized in, the player's football future is jeopardized. What NFL team wants a guy that's been riding the bench for his last two years?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree or disagree with letting a kid who's already been in the program transfer without some penalty. However, I wouldn't force him to use his redshirt year in order to do it. To me making them use the redshirt year, or if they don't have a redshirt year left, forcing them to use a year of eligibility to sit out for a year when he didn't cause the situation is penalizing the student-athlete too much.

So my proposal would be the following:

- When a head coach leaves a school or is fired any scholarship player is immediately able to apply to be released from their scholarship and that release is automatically granted upon request (in other words the school can't force them to sit out 2 years by not releasing them from their scholarship)

- Under those circumstances, when the player transfers, he is immediately granted an additional redshirt year to be used specifically for sitting out that year unless he is granted a waiver to play immediately due to hardship (similar to Tashard's situation)

- If a player has signed an LOI with a school but HAS NOT taken part in any organized sport activities (practices and games, specifically) then and the coach is fired or leaves prior to his first season (in other words if a kid signs an LOI and before starting practice the coach is fired or leaves) the player is eligible to request an immediate and unconditional release from that LOI and can immediately pursue other educational opportunities with no penalty and is considered never to have signed an LOI.

So what this cures is that the school's cannot prevent the player from transferring by holding the TWO years of sitting out over their heads AND they do not have to worry about losing a year of eligibility if they've already redshirted or losing that redshirt year. It also takes kids into account who've signed their LOIs and then lost the coach (I'm sure I've seen times when the school waits until after signing day to fire the coach or the coach quits after signing day but before the next season starts).

What do you all think of those changes to the rules? I'm not 100% set on them or the wording so I'm interested in what others think.
 
JOJATK said:
I'm not sure I agree or disagree with letting a kid who's already been in the program transfer without some penalty. However, I wouldn't force him to use his redshirt year in order to do it. To me making them use the redshirt year, or if they don't have a redshirt year left, forcing them to use a year of eligibility to sit out for a year when he didn't cause the situation is penalizing the student-athlete too much.

So my proposal would be the following:

- When a head coach leaves a school or is fired any scholarship player is immediately able to apply to be released from their scholarship and that release is automatically granted upon request (in other words the school can't force them to sit out 2 years by not releasing them from their scholarship)

- Under those circumstances, when the player transfers, he is immediately granted an additional redshirt year to be used specifically for sitting out that year unless he is granted a waiver to play immediately due to hardship (similar to Tashard's situation)

- If a player has signed an LOI with a school but HAS NOT taken part in any organized sport activities (practices and games, specifically) then and the coach is fired or leaves prior to his first season (in other words if a kid signs an LOI and before starting practice the coach is fired or leaves) the player is eligible to request an immediate and unconditional release from that LOI and can immediately pursue other educational opportunities with no penalty and is considered never to have signed an LOI.

So what this cures is that the school's cannot prevent the player from transferring by holding the TWO years of sitting out over their heads AND they do not have to worry about losing a year of eligibility if they've already redshirted or losing that redshirt year. It also takes kids into account who've signed their LOIs and then lost the coach (I'm sure I've seen times when the school waits until after signing day to fire the coach or the coach quits after signing day but before the next season starts).

What do you all think of those changes to the rules? I'm not 100% set on them or the wording so I'm interested in what others think.
Click to expand...
I like those rules it seems fair to both the school and student. Maybe you should go work for the NCAA.
 
If you let people transfer without penalty, then all the football factories cherry-pick all the other schools for their best players, which would ESPECIALLY SUCK FOR US.

That's why the rule exists, and it's a good one.
 
beej67 said:
If you let people transfer without penalty, then all the football factories cherry-pick all the other schools for their best players, which would ESPECIALLY SUCK FOR US.

That's why the rule exists, and it's a good one.
Click to expand...

100% agree....There are plenty of very good Div.1AA schools to go and play for without penalty..
 
Screw this. Who the hell cares if these cry-baby 'kids' may hurt their NFL care, especially if they aren't students first, and athletes second. They made their bed. They can grow up and lie in it. Become an adult.

I say if a coach leaves, every player on that team should immediately lose all remaining eligibility. Period. They can stay in school if they want, but they can never play college football again. The new coach starts from scratch. The players are SOL.

The other major pro leagues work just fine with minor league feeders. There's no reason the NCAA should have a monopoly on the NFL feeder system.
 
While I'm not as militant as clapper is, I don't feel bad that this poor student doesn't fit into this system and may see limited playing time. Colleges shouldn't be the NFL/NBA minors they've turned into. He has an opportunity to get a free education from a fine university. So the coach got the axe and he is running a system he isn't suited for. Maybe he should have done a better job asking his teammates not to lose to Appalachian State.
 
beej67 said:
If you let people transfer without penalty, then all the football factories cherry-pick all the other schools for their best players, which would ESPECIALLY SUCK FOR US.

That's why the rule exists, and it's a good one.
Click to expand...
But exceptions should be made when a new coach comes in and runs a total different system from what you signed up for. Some recruites do base there decision on the type of offense or defense that a school runs. I wouldnt be mad at DJ if it wasnt for the fact he lied to us.
 
IMO the system in place is pretty good as far as transfers go. I understand Mallett's dilemma, but if all players were allowed free transfers when a coach leaves, then imagine DJ Donley x20 every time a school changes coaches. Entire teams could be poached by the Spurriers and Sabans of the world, and that's not good for the sport.
 
clapper said:
Screw this. Who the hell cares if these cry-baby 'kids' may hurt their NFL care, especially if they aren't students first, and athletes second. They made their bed. They can grow up and lie in it. Become an adult.

I say if a coach leaves, every player on that team should immediately lose all remaining eligibility. Period. They can stay in school if they want, but they can never play college football again. The new coach starts from scratch. The players are SOL.

The other major pro leagues work just fine with minor league feeders. There's no reason the NCAA should have a monopoly on the NFL feeder system.
Click to expand...

You might want to alter this to make the sarcasm a little more obvious.
 
I think players should be able to transfer without sitting out a year ...

As a CS major I can transfer from Tech to Berkeley and not sit out a year ...

Players should also be paid a stipend and not have to go to class if they don't want to. That puts all schools on a level playing field, if you are genuinely interested in learning then go learn, if you want to just learn football then fine ...
 
When the schools start being obligated to the players for more than a year at a time (all scholarships are year-to-year I think) then the players shoudl be obligated to the schools for more than a year at a time.

That's my philosophical take but like someone else said we'd be screwed if transfers were made easier. We'd be the cherrypickee, not the cherrypicker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top