Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 15:02:45 GMT -5
exactly. this is the reality. it's also perfectly understandable, whether you think it's right or not.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on May 22, 2015 15:10:45 GMT -5
That is totally baseless. Why would it matter if they were AA? Being good shouldnt be a reason to not release a player IMO. That would be a lousy way to be discriminated against. I'm not taking a position on the right or wrong of this specific decision. However, your argument doesn't make sense to me. The athletes were obviously treated differently--usually to their benefit-- because they are good. The better the athlete, the greater the perceived loss if he/she leaves. That isn't meant to be an argument for how programs should treat athletes, but it is an accurate reflection of how they are treated. I'll take a position on it. It's wrong! I should add that I have always been on record that all transfers should have to sit a year including Holman. Holman also had no problem with not being released to play in the fall, but when she wasnt released to play sand, and they were taking in transfers, she took it as personal, as would anyone. This is arbitrary, and unfair IMO. Mandatory sit-out, takes the arbitrary out of it. Here is what we know as fact, LSU has zero problems taking in a transfer who was a top player at the school she left, and they have zero problems with a player who isnt exceptional leaving their program with a full release. If you are a great player at LSU, you are operating under a different set of rules.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on May 22, 2015 15:11:26 GMT -5
exactly. this is the reality. it's also perfectly understandable, whether you think it's right or not. It's because it's wrong, that it isnt understandable.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 22, 2015 15:21:12 GMT -5
I'm not taking a position on the right or wrong of this specific decision. However, your argument doesn't make sense to me. The athletes were obviously treated differently--usually to their benefit-- because they are good. The better the athlete, the greater the perceived loss if he/she leaves. That isn't meant to be an argument for how programs should treat athletes, but it is an accurate reflection of how they are treated. I'll take a position on it. It's wrong! I should add that I have always been on record that all transfers should have to sit a year including Holman. Holman also had no problem with not being released to play in the fall, but when she wasnt released to play sand, and they were taking in transfers, she took it as personal, as would anyone. This is arbitrary, and unfair IMO. Mandatory sit-out, takes the arbitrary out of it. Here is what we know as fact, LSU has zero problems taking in a transfer who was a top player at the school she left, and they have zero problems with a player who isnt exceptional leaving their program with a full release. If you are a great player at LSU, you are operating under a different set of rules. The standard response by every coach--including John Cook mind you--is that decisions on giving transfers full releases are made on a "case-by-case basis." This makes sense, of course, when the rules provide for exceptions to the existing rule that transfers must sit out for a year (except those sports where there is no exception). While I appreciate that you feel comfortable taking a definitive position, I would argue that you have no basis to fully evaluate the validity of these decisions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 15:21:42 GMT -5
depends on what you mean by "wrong." if somebody doesn't put a stop to this, the rest of d1 will soon become the minor leagues for 20 other programs. i'm guessing you think it's wrong because she isn't being treated the same as every other transfer. well, she isn't the same as most of the other transfers.
this is the way the world works. it's certainly the way the sports world works.
which is worse, by the way? schools everyone knows have wide open doors for this sort of thing or the schools who don't want to facilitate this sort of stuff?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 22, 2015 15:31:48 GMT -5
exactly. this is the reality. it's also perfectly understandable, whether you think it's right or not. It's because it's wrong, that it isnt understandable. If you believe that every transfer should sit out a year, why is it wrong that Holman must sit out a year? It seems that you and Fran would be in agreement on that specific outcome.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 22, 2015 15:33:03 GMT -5
I'm not taking a position on the right or wrong of this specific decision. However, your argument doesn't make sense to me. The athletes were obviously treated differently--usually to their benefit-- because they are good. The better the athlete, the greater the perceived loss if he/she leaves. That isn't meant to be an argument for how programs should treat athletes, but it is an accurate reflection of how they are treated. I'll take a position on it. It's wrong! I should add that I have always been on record that all transfers should have to sit a year including Holman. Holman also had no problem with not being released to play in the fall, but when she wasnt released to play sand, and they were taking in transfers, she took it as personal, as would anyone. This is arbitrary, and unfair IMO. Mandatory sit-out, takes the arbitrary out of it. Here is what we know as fact, LSU has zero problems taking in a transfer who was a top player at the school she left, and they have zero problems with a player who isnt exceptional leaving their program with a full release. If you are a great player at LSU, you are operating under a different set of rules. Did Fran call you and tell you she is denying Holman's release because she's a great player? Does she have any other reasons?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 15:33:07 GMT -5
i'm not accusing anyone of anything. just stating a fact. dorothy seems to find it hard to understand why holman is different. frankly, i'm surprised mick isn't doing the same with ebony. there are transfers and there are ++transfers++. and this all started with utah ... Sounds like you're accusing John of swiping Holman! GO HUSKERS it's a figure of speech, but, yes, i think nebraska swiped her. i could pick a less negative word, i guess. but i like "swiped." i'd say the same about any of the other programs who were bidding on her.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on May 22, 2015 15:34:12 GMT -5
It's because it's wrong, that it isnt understandable. If you believe that every transfer should sit out a year, why is it wrong that Holman must sit out a year? It seems that you and Fran would be in agreement on that specific outcome. Please read before posting. I have been very clear about transfers sitting including Holman. It's wrong she has to sit out a year but another player leaving doesnt, and one coming in doesnt. Of course as I have said repeatedly IMO they all should.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on May 22, 2015 15:36:08 GMT -5
If you believe that every transfer should sit out a year, why is it wrong that Holman must sit out a year? It seems that you and Fran would be in agreement on that specific outcome. Please read before posting. I have been very clear about transfers sitting including Holman. It's wrong she has to sit out a year but another player leaving doesnt, and one coming in doesnt. Of course as I have said repeatedly IMO they all should. I read before posting. I suggest you think before posting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 15:36:48 GMT -5
so i assume you also think all players should receive equal playing time? i mean, you're all about fairness, right?
dottie, there are perks and there are drawbacks to being good. the perks far outweigh the drawbacks, however.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on May 22, 2015 15:37:48 GMT -5
I'll take a position on it. It's wrong! I should add that I have always been on record that all transfers should have to sit a year including Holman. Holman also had no problem with not being released to play in the fall, but when she wasnt released to play sand, and they were taking in transfers, she took it as personal, as would anyone. This is arbitrary, and unfair IMO. Mandatory sit-out, takes the arbitrary out of it. Here is what we know as fact, LSU has zero problems taking in a transfer who was a top player at the school she left, and they have zero problems with a player who isnt exceptional leaving their program with a full release. If you are a great player at LSU, you are operating under a different set of rules. Did Fran call you and tell you she is denying Holman's release because she's a great player? Does she have any other reasons? It wouldnt matter what reason I was given, or anyone else for that matter. The reason she was given was due to the level of player she is, and it hurts the program when she leaves. Both are accurate, I am questioning the fairness of it. I think Fran is both a very good person, and a very good coach. I just think in this situation she is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on May 22, 2015 15:39:46 GMT -5
Sounds like you're accusing John of swiping Holman! GO HUSKERS it's a figure of speech, but, yes, i think nebraska swiped her. i could pick a less negative word, i guess. but i like "swiped." i'd say the same about any of the other programs who were bidding on her. I havent hear that from one person, including those close to the LSU program. I have heard about it "a lot"about some of the current transfers, but not this one. Were you aware she approached coaches a year earlier about transferring and stayed when they asked her to give it another year? That kinda debunks the swiping theory. What basis do you have to make that statement?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2015 15:42:16 GMT -5
she played at lsu last year. she is now at nebraska.
kinda like my wallet being in the living room and then in someone else's car.
seriously. i get that you (and others) don't like that word. but nebraska (and the other schools) were not passive participants in this. i'm sure it was all above-board (as far as anyone will ever know), but "swipe" is still the word i like to describe these transfers. there's practically a "transfers wanted!" under the nebraska logo these days, dottie. they are part -- a big part, an original part -- of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on May 22, 2015 15:43:34 GMT -5
Please read before posting. I have been very clear about transfers sitting including Holman. It's wrong she has to sit out a year but another player leaving doesnt, and one coming in doesnt. Of course as I have said repeatedly IMO they all should. I read before posting. I suggest you think before posting. If you read before posting, you certainly would have read " I should add that I have always been on record that all transfers should have to sit a year including Holman." Unless of course you have a significant comprehension problem.
|
|