Anyone know what this is about?

[Xception]

Players first doesn't apply to a graduate transfer who simply bails on the school he committed to for no good reason . It wasn't like Lee wasn't getting what he signed up for at Drexel , I also don't think Julius Mayes should have came here . At some point the school has to benefit , it can't be players first and school never . If that's the case then players should take cash from agents because , you know , players first . I think the player should be put first by the school but then the player should reciprocate if that is being met . Lee bailed on Drexel and missed the tournament , Julius bailed on Wright St and got the NIT . I feel bad for neither

 

[JPScott]

Players first doesn't apply to a graduate transfer who simply bails on the school he committed to for no good reason . It wasn't like Lee wasn't getting what he signed up for at Drexel , I also don't think Julius Mayes should have came here . At some point the school has to benefit , it can't be players first and school never . If that's the case then players should take cash from agents because , you know , players first . I think the player should be put first by the school but then the player should reciprocate if that is being met . Lee bailed on Drexel and missed the tournament , Julius bailed on Wright St and got the NIT . I feel bad for neither

But if a player already graduates from a school, how can one call it 'bailing' ?

 

[Xception]

But if a player already graduates from a school, how can one call it 'bailing' ?

Could he have played another year at the school he committed to ? If yes then it's bailing to me , he didn't get a scholarship to graduate but play ball for that school . So long as they treat the player fairly why does he get to repick ?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Could he have played another year at the school he committed to ? If yes then it's bailing to me , he didn't get a scholarship to graduate but play ball for that school . So long as they treat the player fairly why does he get to repick ?

Should a coach that "bails" on his program have to also sit out? If Drexel made a few runs deep into the tourney, with a stand-out player, and that coach was offered a position at a major program and he/she takes it then should they have to sit out a year? If that stand-out player graduates and wants to transfer, he shouldn't be able to play right away?

This is the only rule of the NCAA that is in the players advantage, rather than the school or the coach. It is almost by definition a "players-first" rule. The players are the only part of the program that will have to sit-out if they decide that they want to play elsewhere, barring graduating (or some other cases). Yes, it is/can be a huge inconvenience to a coach that is counting on their (probably star) player playing the upcoming year...but too bad, they can always go out and spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars they're making. When the coach "bails" on his players, they're not so fortunate.

 

[TheDude1]

Could he have played another year at the school he committed to ? If yes then it's bailing to me , he didn't get a scholarship to graduate but play ball for that school . So long as they treat the player fairly why does he get to repick ?

That's the exact thing they are doing; when they apply and matriculate at a school, they are signing up to play a sport at a school until they graduate. There is no implication that they have to then stay at that school for all of their schooling. Why on earth would we force kids to stay at a school if they want to get a masters but play a sport?

 

[JPScott]

Could he have played another year at the school he committed to ? If yes then it's bailing to me , he didn't get a scholarship to graduate but play ball for that school . So long as they treat the player fairly why does he get to repick ?

Maybe because the original agreement presumably is that the player agrees to play a sport for the school without monetary compensation while the school agrees to provide an education, which hopefully results in a degree.

Earning the degree seems like a good point to me where both sides have received enough benefit from the relationship that they should be able to part ways if they choose (and remember for the school they can ALWAYS part ways for any given year since scholarships are renewed year-by-year.)

And at that point it seems to be a natural point in life for the player to decide: 1.) do you want to stay in the same school (either by stringing out your graduation or entering grad school) to use up your remaining eligibility 2.) do you want to leave school with your degree and try to find a job (whether it's professional basketball or something else) or 3.) do you potentially want to go to grad school somewhere else (and potentially using your remaining eligibility to earn a scholarship while doing it.)

Why does the student-athlete get to repick? Maybe because the University in question doesn't OWN the player. It's his life afterall.

 

[ceeph]

I love coach Cal but he was being hypocrite bashing the grad transfer rule. I understand he was taking up for his friend (Flint). But if Cal is all about the players first why is he against this? Why should a player not be able to transfer at any time if they are not happy? Coaches can leave at any time if they are not happy. A players first view would be that players should be allowed to transfer for any reason at any time without sitting out. After all it is all about the Players right and them reaching their dream? we shouldn't worry how this would effect schools or coaches. Isn't this normally what cal preaches to us about how we as fans should be?

 

[jaknfo90]

Hes pissed cuz Lee left and hurt a friends career and helped his enemies.

You are correct in that it hurt his friends but I don't know that much could help Pitino this year as they sit again and watch the Cats play. Then again, if it weren't for Lee & Lewis UL would've sucked this year, maybe the bottom of the ACC, and still been out of the tournament so I guess, in a way, it did help his enemy. Poor Cards.

 

[Xception]

Maybe because the original agreement presumably is that the player agrees to play a sport for the school without monetary compensation while the school agrees to provide an education, which hopefully results in a degree.

Earning the degree seems like a good point to me where both sides have received enough benefit from the relationship that they should be able to part ways if they choose (and remember for the school they can ALWAYS part ways for any given year since scholarships are renewed year-by-year.)

And at that point it seems to be a natural point in life for the player to decide: 1.) do you want to stay in the same school (either by stringing out your graduation or entering grad school) to use up your remaining eligibility 2.) do you want to leave school with your degree and try to find a job (whether it's professional basketball or something else) or 3.) do you potentially want to go to grad school somewhere else (and potentially using your remaining eligibility to earn a scholarship while doing it.)

Why does the student-athlete get to repick? Maybe because the University in question doesn't OWN the player. It's his life afterall.

So loyalty to the school you signed up to play for means nothing ? Loyalty is very important to me and that's where the different stance probably comes from . If you think the school signed him for anything other than playing ball then I don't know what to tell you , which makes the argument that once they graduate the obligation is fulfilled a ridiculous notion . I guess Anthony Davis did not fulfill his obligation but let's say he did and graduated as an example . If he had the same circumstance as Lee or Mays , I highly doubt and that's putting it insanely mild that UK fans would be cool if he went to another school because he fulfilled his obligation .

There would be hellfire and brimstone on this board , certainly no arguments of educational requirements at that point . So it's self serving on our part to be ok with it because it's never going to hurt us , just the smaller school . It is a free country but that doesn't make things right . Some guys fall in love with the wrong woman and she leaves him for someone with more money . It's a free country but that wouldn't make the guy she left feeling like it was right . The graduate thing is legal and I see where people are ok with it , we are the rich guy so it's of no consequence to us .

 

[TheDude1]

So loyalty to the school you signed up to play for means nothing ? Loyalty is very important to me and that's where the different stance probably comes from . If you think the school signed him for anything other than playing ball then I don't know what to tell you , which makes the argument that once they graduate the obligation is fulfilled a ridiculous notion . I guess Anthony Davis did not fulfill his obligation but let's say he did and graduated as an example . If he had the same circumstance as Lee or Mays , I highly doubt and that's putting it insanely mild that UK fans would be cool if he went to another school because he fulfilled his obligation .

There would be hellfire and brimstone on this board , certainly no arguments of educational requirements at that point . So it's self serving on our part to be ok with it because it's never going to hurt us , just the smaller school . It is a free country but that doesn't make things right . Some guys fall in love with the wrong woman and she leaves him for someone with more money . It's a free country but that wouldn't make the guy she left feeling like it was right . The graduate thing is legal and I see where people are ok with it , we are the rich guy so it's of no consequence to us .

I don't get a lot of what you are saying here, but as JP said... when a player signs to play basketball at a school, it is as an undergraduate working towards getting a college degree.

What they do after they graduate is up to them. If they had a great experience, they might stay. They might also feel that they could grow or learn more elsewhere. They should have the right to do that, if they have already finished out their obligation.

 

[Xception]

I don't get a lot of what you are saying here, but as JP said... when a player signs to play basketball at a school, it is as an undergraduate working towards getting a college degree.

What they do after they graduate is up to them. If they had a great experience, they might stay. They might also feel that they could grow or learn more elsewhere. They should have the right to do that, if they have already finished out their obligation.

You would have to go out of your way to not get what I posted , which tells me you didn't have a good response so you presented what's already been stated . Would you be cool with Anthony Davis going to another school if he was in a graduate transfer situation at UK . Would you be like , well he gave us a few good years and met his obligation of graduating so good luck going to Duke your last year Anthony . Of course that type of thing doesn't happen at the big schools but if you're ok with it happening to any school then you should be ok with it happening to every school . But you and everybody else knows if we lost our best player it would not be taken so gracefully and the whole process would be condemned .

 

[ceeph]

So loyalty to the school you signed up to play for means nothing ? Loyalty is very important to me and that's where the different stance probably comes from . If you think the school signed him for anything other than playing ball then I don't know what to tell you , which makes the argument that once they graduate the obligation is fulfilled a ridiculous notion . I guess Anthony Davis did not fulfill his obligation but let's say he did and graduated as an example . If he had the same circumstance as Lee or Mays , I highly doubt and that's putting it insanely mild that UK fans would be cool if he went to another school because he fulfilled his obligation .

There would be hellfire and brimstone on this board , certainly no arguments of educational requirements at that point . So it's self serving on our part to be ok with it because it's never going to hurt us , just the smaller school . It is a free country but that doesn't make things right . Some guys fall in love with the wrong woman and she leaves him for someone with more money . It's a free country but that wouldn't make the guy she left feeling like it was right . The graduate thing is legal and I see where people are ok with it , we are the rich guy so it's of no consequence to us .

No Loyalty should not apply if we are truly players first. The only goal would be to make the players dreams come true. It is not about the schools or programs(see my previous post in this thread)

 

[EdNygma]

Bottom line is Lee got Bruiser fired

That is false.

Bruiser Flint has been the HC at Drexel since 2001. They have been to the post season 5 times in the 15 years he was their coach. All of those events were in the NIT where he was 2-5 during that span. Drexel has been to the NCAA 4 times ever, the last being in 1996 which was before he became their coach.

He was fired because in 15 years the teams record has continued to worsen and they have not been effective in making the post season. Lee was on the team for three years and they never made the post season then either. 40-51 is the combined record while Lee was there.

 

[CharlieT71059]

Many of the NCAA rules suck

 

[stoneycat_20]

That is false.

Bruiser Flint has been the HC at Drexel since 2001. They have been to the post season 5 times in the 15 years he was their coach. All of those events were in the NIT where he was 2-5 during that span. Drexel has been to the NCAA 4 times ever, the last being in 1996 which was before he became their coach.

He was fired because in 15 years the teams record has continued to worsen and they have not been effective in making the post season. Lee was on the team for three years and they never made the post season then either. 40-51 is the combined record while Lee was there.

You can believe what you want..Imo had Lee played at Drexel this year Flint would have saved his job..Might only been for 1 more year, but would not have been fired this year..