Nick Saban blocking transfers

[4down20]

Ahh yes, this gif again. They never tire

 

[nddulac]

You're telling us? We already knew this.

Specifically, I am confused by your failure to understand the words you use. (I'm sure I am not alone in that.)

 

[ralphiewvu]

You left out one very important part of the story. Kid graduated a few days back and since he is no longer part of the athletic department, not on financial aid in grant and not enrolled in classes, Saban really didnt have to do anything but grant his release from the athletic scholarship that he was not going to be using anyway. So really, what did Saban do that was not already done? The kid was free to leave, he just could not play for Georgia for one year. The way Saban did it now puts the onus on the kid to meet the SEC mandated benchmarks(per the rules already in place) to enroll, take so many classes in a time frame and graduate with his degree from that University in said time frame or that University loses its ability to accept grad transfers for a period of time.

While I get what you are saying (onus on the kid to get the classes done and graduate on time) and agree but Calling the kid a whiner for wanting to transfer to school you guys do not play (as Chris black did) was bs. It is what it is. But if Saban really a wanted to continue that onus, he shouldn't have backed down and given that release.

 

[4down20]

While I get what you are saying (onus on the kid to get the classes done and graduate on time) and agree but Calling the kid a whiner for wanting to transfer to school you guys do not play (as Chris black did) was bs. It is what it is. But if Saban really a wanted to continue that onus, he shouldn't have backed down and given that release.

They literally went to the media and cried about it until they got their way. It basically got to the point where they said fuck it, it's not worth the effort.

 

[Rolltide94]

I stand by what I said. The faculty, the coaches, and the university as a whole are there for the students.

And before you get all high-and-mighty about how there wouldn't be early classes if the university was actually there for the students, consider a 7:30 am class I taught once. A very good portion of the class chose to take that section so that they could get it in before going to work for the day. Do you think I wanted to be there at 7:30? I brought my A game because those students deserved it.

I could address a number of other ridiculous points you made about what is in the interest of students or not, but I will leave it to this one example. Suffice it to say that there are many variables that define how a university can serve its students. They have to be balanced as well as can be done to meet the needs of as many as possible. And that is no easy task. But it isn't accomplished by telling people what they can and can not do once they are done with their degree programs. (Because the point to to get them to that completion point.)

Good for you...there are also plenty of students sitting in an 8am class because that was the only time slot available...pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

My point was that a university like any other organization is run by a series of compromises, pretending like everything they do is in the best interest of students is a ridiculous simplification of a complex system.

 

[ralphiewvu]

They literally went to the media and cried about it until they got their way. It basically got to the point where they said fuck it, it's not worth the effort.

Ohhh gmfb. Saban was being a dick and got called out for it. If it wasn't worth the effort he should have never blocked him from playing right away in the first place.

 

[nddulac]

My point was that a university like any other organization is run by a series of compromises, pretending like everything they do is in the best interest of students is a ridiculous simplification of a complex system.

Having spent a great deal of my adult life working within various university communities, I can confirm your observation that not everything is done in the interest of students. For example, I had a colleague who took federal grant money intended to support under-represented students in research, and then provided zero support for the student's research (and then trashed her in his reference letter for graduate school, because she didn't complete her research project.). That was wrong (in oh so many ways.)

I see blocking transfers for those who have finished their degrees as being a very similar form of exploitation. When you give a kid an athletic scholarship, you promise two things: 1) access to a first rate education and b) an opportunity to play his or her sport on a high level (including access to great training facilities and coaching/development.) You measure your success with that student-athlete based on how he/she progresses through her/his chosen degree program as well how the person performs on the field. It's bad enough (and a topic that could fill multiple pages of discussion in another thread) when you can pull the access to an education part based on how well a student-athlete plays, but then to penalize him/her by blocking transfers after he/she has completed the single most important metric of success (completion of a degree) is unconscionable. It is at that point that the institution has reached the absurd conclusion that the student is there for them. I mean - what the hell is next? are we going to insist that students enroll in certain classes because the enrollment is too low and we might have to let some faculty go? (I'm sure it happens.)

Just because it is "what is done everywhere" does not make it right or okay. And I know I'm tilting at windmills in this. But I will always believe that student-athletes should be given some benefit if they take care of the student part of the expectations placed upon them.

 

[socaljim242]

Having spent a great deal of my adult life working within various university communities, I can confirm your observation that not everything is done in the interest of students. For example, I had a colleague who took federal grant money intended to support under-represented students in research, and then provided zero support for the student's research (and then trashed her in his reference letter for graduate school, because she didn't complete her research project.). That was wrong (in oh so many ways.)

I see blocking transfers for those who have finished their degrees as being a very similar form of exploitation. When you give a kid an athletic scholarship, you promise two things: 1) access to a first rate education and b) an opportunity to play his or her sport on a high level (including access to great training facilities and coaching/development.) You measure your success with that student-athlete based on how he/she progresses through her/his chosen degree program as well how the person performs on the field. It's bad enough (and a topic that could fill multiple pages of discussion in another thread) when you can pull the access to an education part based on how well a student-athlete plays, but then to penalize him/her by blocking transfers after he/she has completed the single most important metric of success (completion of a degree) is unconscionable. It is at that point that the institution has reached the absurd conclusion that the student is there for them. I mean - what the hell is next? are we going to insist that students enroll in certain classes because the enrollment is too low and we might have to let some faculty go? (I'm sure it happens.)

Just because it is "what is done everywhere" does not make it right or okay. And I know I'm tilting at windmills in this. But I will always believe that student-athletes should be given some benefit if they take care of the student part of the expectations placed upon them.

You are totally correct sir but you're arguing against people who care more about the ability of the football teams to compete if that player leaves rather than giving him kudos for graduating and wishing him well no matter where he goes on to play that last year.

 

[nddulac]

You are totally correct sir but you're arguing against people who care more about the ability of the football teams to compete if that player leaves than giving him kudos for graduating.

I have a hard time thinking that Alabama doesn't have sufficient talent waiting in the wings to take over for a player that has chosen to leave.

 

[socaljim242]

I have a hard time thinking that Alabama doesn't have sufficient talent waiting in the wings to take over for a player that has chosen to leave.

Sabans a control freak and even this little thing he can't take. Of course he has the talent waiting to take over. It's about the need to control the lives of these kids. If the kid leaves in his mind he's lost so he says no.
USC had a starting freshman rb/slot guy want to transfer to Notre Dame because his father got a job at Purdue. I was glad they let him go even knowing they would have to play against him every year. It takes a big man to do that or at least someone who takes their role as teacher seriously.

And Bama fan with the BS icon. You're a prime example of a fan who couldn't care less about the actual kids.

 

[4down20]

Ohhh gmfb. Saban was being a dick and got called out for it. If it wasn't worth the effort he should have never blocked him from playing right away in the first place.

Saban was being a dick for following the rules?

Oh yeah, because he made an exception for another guy right? No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[4down20]

Having spent a great deal of my adult life working within various university communities, I can confirm your observation that not everything is done in the interest of students. For example, I had a colleague who took federal grant money intended to support under-represented students in research, and then provided zero support for the student's research (and then trashed her in his reference letter for graduate school, because she didn't complete her research project.). That was wrong (in oh so many ways.)

I see blocking transfers for those who have finished their degrees as being a very similar form of exploitation. When you give a kid an athletic scholarship, you promise two things: 1) access to a first rate education and b) an opportunity to play his or her sport on a high level (including access to great training facilities and coaching/development.) You measure your success with that student-athlete based on how he/she progresses through her/his chosen degree program as well how the person performs on the field. It's bad enough (and a topic that could fill multiple pages of discussion in another thread) when you can pull the access to an education part based on how well a student-athlete plays, but then to penalize him/her by blocking transfers after he/she has completed the single most important metric of success (completion of a degree) is unconscionable. It is at that point that the institution has reached the absurd conclusion that the student is there for them. I mean - what the hell is next? are we going to insist that students enroll in certain classes because the enrollment is too low and we might have to let some faculty go? (I'm sure it happens.)

Just because it is "what is done everywhere" does not make it right or okay. And I know I'm tilting at windmills in this. But I will always believe that student-athletes should be given some benefit if they take care of the student part of the expectations placed upon them.

The rule is done to prevent college football from becoming free agency.

It's not a mystery.

 

[socaljim242]

The rule is done to prevent college football from becoming free agency.

It's not a mystery.

So while Alabama was in the running for Pukrup, the fifth year grad QB who ended up at Oregon , Saban is worried about his kid leaving because he's worried about it becoming free agency. Yeah ok. Totally logical.

 

[4down20]

So while Alabama was in the running for Pukrup, the fifth year grad QB who ended up at Oregon , Saban is worried about his kid leaving because he's worried about it becoming free agency. Yeah ok. Totally logical.

Because he only had 1 year of eligibility left, in order for that guy to have come to the SEC/Alabama he would have had to get a waiver and he would have had to show academic reasons for wanting to transfer.

 

[socaljim242]

Because he only had 1 year of eligibility left, in order for that guy to have come to the SEC/Alabama he would have had to get a waiver and he would have had to show academic reasons for wanting to transfer.

No shit. Every grad transfer has to do the same.

 

[nddulac]

The rule is done to prevent college football from becoming free agency.

Irrespective of the intent, it takes the "college" out of "college football." That's why it is wrong. I'm not against placing restrictions on pre-degree transfers. My problem is placing those restrictions on graduates.

Incidentally, when it comes to coaching, it is already a "free agent" system.

 

[nddulac]

Because he only had 1 year of eligibility left, in order for that guy to have come to the SEC/Alabama he would have had to get a waiver and he would have had to show academic reasons for wanting to transfer.

I honestly can not think of a more compelling academic reason for transferring than "I finished my program of study." The trick then is making an academic case for staying.

 

[4down20]

No shit. Every grad transfer has to do the same.

Except for Maurice Smith who wasn't able to do such.

 

[4down20]

I honestly can not think of a more compelling academic reason for transferring than "I finished my program of study." The trick then is making an academic case for staying.

Well you're a dumbass and a prime example of why our education is shit, so this is not surprising.

 

[4down20]

Irrespective of the intent, it takes the "college" out of "college football." That's why it is wrong. I'm not against placing restrictions on pre-degree transfers. My problem is placing those restrictions on graduates.

Incidentally, when it comes to coaching, it is already a "free agent" system.

If they want to quit football with their degree, then they are free to do so. But no matter if you like it or not, there are rules that are put into place for competitive reasons to try and keep things fair. This is one of them.

And the weird part about all this - Alabama will benefit from this rule going away, but everyone is too busy crying about Nick Saban to realize it.