Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 11:36:06 GMT -5
The reason this is a good rule for volleyball is that coaches can grant a kid a release if they handled things the right way. BB doesn't have that freedom all kids have to sit, even if they are a 1. good kid with 2. good reasons to Transfer. I suspect in this case the player didn't reach those 2 criteria. I'm hard-pressed to think of two less objective standards than "good kid" and "good reasons to transfer." Unless you subscribe to the Whizzer White line of thinking that you'll know it when you see it.
|
|
|
Post by gnu2vball on Jan 28, 2015 11:37:25 GMT -5
can you give three examples? Perhaps I should have made clear that I wasn't referring to volleyball, and certainly not any particular program.
Situational ethics in sports in general? That football thing with the Patriots, Ray Rice receiving a two-game suspension initially for "conduct unbecoming," how juiced players help swell major league baseball attendance, but destroyed the game's integrity.
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on Jan 28, 2015 11:45:53 GMT -5
FWIW, Holman had met with LSU coach mid-season and told her how she felt and what her goals were and she did not think she could achieve those goals at LSU (that is pretty honest and open of a player to take those concerns to a coach mid-season to get coaches input on her concerns). The coach talked with her and said keep training hard and let's get through the season with the goal of reaching the NCAAs and then we can revisit at end of season. (I only know the version from the player's side so if there were certain things not mentioned from the coaches side I am not aware of those items around transferring)
Let's take Holman out of the equation for - should a player have to sit a year for transferring - because she is at Nebraska, seems very happy and feels she can achieve her goals even if she has to sit next year. I say it is a small price to pay to be somewhere you want to be and you truly feel you can achieve your dreams rather than spending four years somewhere that you may like the people, but you know you cannot accomplish what you dream of in your 4-5 year window. Life is to short to be unhappy for 3-4 years.
We will not know if the Holman non-release is fair or not until all the information has been disclosed, so let's not turn this thread into another long Holman debate/critic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 11:55:01 GMT -5
FWIW, Holman had met with LSU coach mid-season and told her how she felt and what her goals were and she did not think she could achieve those goals at LSU (that is pretty honest and open of a player to take those concerns to a coach mid-season to get coaches input on her concerns). The coach talked with her and said keep training hard and let's get through the season with the goal of reaching the NCAAs and then we can revisit at end of season. (I only know the version from the player's side so if there were certain things not mentioned from the coaches side I am not aware of those items around transferring) Let's take Holman out of the equation for - should a player have to sit a year for transferring - because she is at Nebraska, seems very happy and feels she can achieve her goals even if she has to sit next year. I say it is a small price to pay to be somewhere you want to be and you truly feel you can achieve your dreams rather than spending four years somewhere that you may like the people, but you know you cannot accomplish what you dream of in your 4-5 year window. Life is to short to be unhappy for 3-4 years. We will not know if the Holman non-release is fair or not until all the information has been disclosed, so let's not turn this thread into another long Holman debate/critic. But we can decide -- in our individual subjective judgments -- whether it is fair, or unfair, to require any NCAA SA to sit out a year in order to transfer. I tend to think it is not fair, as a general matter.
|
|
|
Post by vbprisoner on Jan 28, 2015 11:57:21 GMT -5
Unless I missed the change of NCAA rules for D1 there are other sports that require a transfer student athlete to sit out like men's soccer and baseball. I know of a player that played soccer for an ACC school and transferred to another top program outside the ACC and he had to sit out a year by NCAA rules (this was 12-13 years ago).
Why do some sports, aside from football and basketball, require the student athlete to sit out for transferring and others like women's volleyball not have that requirement? I understand the rule for revenue sports like football and basketball; those sports generate big TV revenue.
|
|
|
Post by InTheKnow on Jan 28, 2015 12:17:01 GMT -5
Every sport has different rules. The coaches of each sport have a committee and they purpose/pass the rules that they believe best impact their sport.
VB coaches allowed for the possibility to transfer without sitting TO HELP THE ATHLETE.
Many of the other sports have mandatory 1 year sit. There is no consideration for the individual situation. That's why I said in VB if a player is a good kid and has very good reasons to transfer a coach can grant a release.
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Jan 28, 2015 12:18:53 GMT -5
FWIW, Holman had met with LSU coach mid-season and told her how she felt and what her goals were and she did not think she could achieve those goals at LSU (that is pretty honest and open of a player to take those concerns to a coach mid-season to get coaches input on her concerns). The coach talked with her and said keep training hard and let's get through the season with the goal of reaching the NCAAs and then we can revisit at end of season. (I only know the version from the player's side so if there were certain things not mentioned from the coaches side I am not aware of those items around transferring) Let's take Holman out of the equation for - should a player have to sit a year for transferring - because she is at Nebraska, seems very happy and feels she can achieve her goals even if she has to sit next year. I say it is a small price to pay to be somewhere you want to be and you truly feel you can achieve your dreams rather than spending four years somewhere that you may like the people, but you know you cannot accomplish what you dream of in your 4-5 year window. Life is to short to be unhappy for 3-4 years. We will not know if the Holman non-release is fair or not until all the information has been disclosed, so let's not turn this thread into another long Holman debate/critic. What are /were her goals ? To be a 1st team all-American (check) ? To play on the National team ? So, if she stayed in the hinterlands of Baton Rouge, LA she would have gone unnoticed by Karch and the gang at USA Volleyball ? To win a National championship ? I would think she would have gone to PSU then. Or is it I want to go to the place where I'll get the most attention and fan-love. Call me a cynic, but I hope her pursuit of her "goals" all work out for all parties
|
|
|
Post by #skoskers on Jan 28, 2015 13:23:03 GMT -5
FWIW, Holman had met with LSU coach mid-season and told her how she felt and what her goals were and she did not think she could achieve those goals at LSU (that is pretty honest and open of a player to take those concerns to a coach mid-season to get coaches input on her concerns). The coach talked with her and said keep training hard and let's get through the season with the goal of reaching the NCAAs and then we can revisit at end of season. (I only know the version from the player's side so if there were certain things not mentioned from the coaches side I am not aware of those items around transferring) Let's take Holman out of the equation for - should a player have to sit a year for transferring - because she is at Nebraska, seems very happy and feels she can achieve her goals even if she has to sit next year. I say it is a small price to pay to be somewhere you want to be and you truly feel you can achieve your dreams rather than spending four years somewhere that you may like the people, but you know you cannot accomplish what you dream of in your 4-5 year window. Life is to short to be unhappy for 3-4 years. We will not know if the Holman non-release is fair or not until all the information has been disclosed, so let's not turn this thread into another long Holman debate/critic. What are /were her goals ? To be a 1st team all-American (check) ? To play on the National team ? So, if she stayed in the hinterlands of Baton Rouge, LA she would have gone unnoticed by Karch and the gang at USA Volleyball ? To win a National championship ? I would think she would have gone to PSU then. Or is it I want to go to the place where I'll get the most attention and fan-love. Call me a cynic, but I hope her pursuit of her "goals" all work out for all parties ...all the while being very miserable at LSU. Are you implying that as long as the transfer has AA honors, she or he legitimately can’t consider moving on to another program when things have gotten so bad? Try being cynical in person to the handful of Tennessee players that accrued SEC honors and AA letters but still transferred out of the sinking ship in Knoxville. I don't believe anyone here, or even Bri, is diminishing her accomplishments in Baton Rouge. Indeed, she got a lot of awards and recognition there, but there were so many negatives that outweighed the accolades she garnered. Consider how she gauged the level of support for volleyball by her coaches (or lack thereof) and AD. I’d also ask if you would be turned off by a coach that broke countless promises for her own selfish ends and whims? Perhaps the AA transfer realized that the future development of her game would be improbable or nonexistent at LSU (with weaker conference and OOC foes that don’t present the same grinding challenges as their B1G counterparts) and opted to go to a program with proven results at producing high-caliber athletes that go on to play professionally. I mean, what's the point of living if you can't feel alive? In this case, why play volleyball (a passion of hers for which she received so many awards) when it makes one feel so despondent and unhappy? It's too bad that Fran is still trying to manipulate Bri and enervate her hopes by not granting her release, especially in light of gladly taking a released transfer to start her in Briana's place for next season.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jan 28, 2015 13:39:24 GMT -5
...all the while being very miserable at LSU. Was there evidence that she was miserable at LSU? I'm for the mandatory sit out a year to prevent a player from transferring just for the sake of playing for a better program. Maybe a kid was underrecruited out of high school. Then after having a great freshman and sophomore season, B1G-time coach makes a call to a former club coach just to make sure she knows that if she wanted to, she could play at a top program. Kid was perfectly happy at previous school, but then transfers. I've seen this happen first hand. If a kid is truly miserable at a school, I don't understand everybody saying it's such a harsh punishment to make a kid wait a year to play matches for the new school. She's now getting FIVE years of scholarship money, FIVE years of room and board and FIVE years of training. Just not the instant gratification.
|
|
|
Post by #skoskers on Jan 28, 2015 14:08:48 GMT -5
...all the while being very miserable at LSU. Was there evidence that she was miserable at LSU? I'm for the mandatory sit out a year to prevent a player from transferring just for the sake of playing for a better program. Maybe a kid was underrecruited out of high school. Then after having a great freshman and sophomore season, B1G-time coach makes a call to a former club coach just to make sure she knows that if she wanted to, she could play at a top program. Kid was perfectly happy at previous school, but then transfers. I've seen this happen first hand. If a kid is truly miserable at a school, I don't understand everybody saying it's such a harsh punishment to make a kid wait a year to play matches for the new school. She's now getting FIVE years of scholarship money, FIVE years of room and board and FIVE years of training. Just not the instant gratification. The hypothetical situation you painted above is far removed from Briana’s transfer. LOL Briana requested to transfer in her freshman year… Consider the following: Perhaps the fifth year removes a year from playing professionally when athletes make the bulk of their life's income (considering there are shelf lives for athletes); maybe the fifth year will interfere with the timing of making it to the national team and competing in the Olympics (not saying this is the case here, but people have discussed the timing issues for players like Carlini and Hancock compared to Larson and Foluke in this quadrennial). The fifth year may also hamper or delay other professional and personal plans, like starting a family or matriculating in grad school. Of course the player could leave a program at any time to pursue the above-mentioned goals, but I’m an advocate of completing one’s undergrad before going overseas to play professionally. In Holman’s case, she’s going to work on her master’s degree in her fifth year and try her best to regard the redshirt year as a positive. However, it just seems fascist to punish a transfer for another year if the transfer was so miserable in prior years. (Yes, miserable.)
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Jan 28, 2015 14:15:45 GMT -5
...all the while being very miserable at LSU. Was there evidence that she was miserable at LSU? I'm for the mandatory sit out a year to prevent a player from transferring just for the sake of playing for a better program. Maybe a kid was underrecruited out of high school. Then after having a great freshman and sophomore season, B1G-time coach makes a call to a former club coach just to make sure she knows that if she wanted to, she could play at a top program. Kid was perfectly happy at previous school, but then transfers. I've seen this happen first hand. If a kid is truly miserable at a school, I don't understand everybody saying it's such a harsh punishment to make a kid wait a year to play matches for the new school. She's now getting FIVE years of scholarship money, FIVE years of room and board and FIVE years of training. Just not the instant gratification. I don't think anyone is arguing against sitting out a year, we are arguing that its the coaches decision. It should be all or none. The LSU coach disappoints me because I can say with enough confidence that if a bench player or a not as good player transferred, they would release her. But the coach is obviously bitter the best player wanted to leave, so they let their own personal vendetta influence the choice. Yet, that coach has the audacity to accept a player that doesn't have to sit out. Take shoji for example. Croson was our second best player behind hartong, and even though arizona was SET TO PLAY hawaii, he still released her (Granted she couldn't come on the trip). Giving the coach the power to release players or not is giving them TOO MUCH power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 14:31:45 GMT -5
Was there evidence that she was miserable at LSU? I'm for the mandatory sit out a year to prevent a player from transferring just for the sake of playing for a better program. Maybe a kid was underrecruited out of high school. Then after having a great freshman and sophomore season, B1G-time coach makes a call to a former club coach just to make sure she knows that if she wanted to, she could play at a top program. Kid was perfectly happy at previous school, but then transfers. I've seen this happen first hand. If a kid is truly miserable at a school, I don't understand everybody saying it's such a harsh punishment to make a kid wait a year to play matches for the new school. She's now getting FIVE years of scholarship money, FIVE years of room and board and FIVE years of training. Just not the instant gratification. I don't think anyone is arguing against sitting out a year, we are arguing that its the coaches decision. It should be all or none. The LSU coach disappoints me because I can say with enough confidence that if a bench player or a not as good player transferred, they would release her. But the coach is obviously bitter the best player wanted to leave, so they let their own personal vendetta influence the choice. Yet, that coach has the audacity to accept a player that doesn't have to sit out. Take shoji for example. Croson was our second best player behind hartong, and even though arizona was SET TO PLAY hawaii, he still released her (Granted she couldn't come on the trip). Giving the coach the power to release players or not is giving them TOO MUCH power. Actually, unless scholarships are guaranteed for four years, I would argue against having to sit out. There was an extensive discussion of this in the original Holman landing thread. I do understand and appreciate that others legitimately take the other view.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 28, 2015 14:35:19 GMT -5
Coaches should be careful what they wish for. Mandatory year sitting out and it's gonna get a lot nastier when they push a player out/have the "talk" with them.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Jan 28, 2015 14:42:54 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is arguing against sitting out a year, we are arguing that its the coaches decision. It should be all or none. The LSU coach disappoints me because I can say with enough confidence that if a bench player or a not as good player transferred, they would release her. But the coach is obviously bitter the best player wanted to leave, so they let their own personal vendetta influence the choice. Yet, that coach has the audacity to accept a player that doesn't have to sit out. Take shoji for example. Croson was our second best player behind hartong, and even though arizona was SET TO PLAY hawaii, he still released her (Granted she couldn't come on the trip). Giving the coach the power to release players or not is giving them TOO MUCH power. Actually, unless scholarships are guaranteed for four years, I would argue against having to sit out. There was an extensive discussion of this in the original Holman landing thread. I do understand and appreciate that others legitimately take the other view. I don't necessarily disagree. I rather have them NOT sit out, but I don't think anyone is TRULY against it. What I've seen, more people are against it being the coaches choice. But like I said, it should be all or none. Not "I'm the coach so I have the power and I'm bitter so no playing for you"
|
|
|
Post by oldmanred on Jan 28, 2015 15:55:35 GMT -5
n00b said "She's now getting FIVE years of scholarship money, FIVE years of room and board and FIVE years of training. Just not the instant gratification."
Didja miss the part where she walked on at Nebraska?
GO HUSKERS
|
|