|
Post by sevb on Apr 9, 2014 15:02:28 GMT -5
I am a D2 setter with 2 years of eligibility left. I would like to transfer because I am getting poor coaching in terms of both technical tuition and relationships. If you are interested in bringing in a setter for 2 years, send me a private message, I will be happy to get you some film. Thanks! Examples #1 & #2 for how NOT to be contacted... Don't offer a release in hand & throw current coach under the bus...
|
|
|
Post by mavericks on Apr 9, 2014 15:34:58 GMT -5
Mar 24, 2014 at 10:29am c4ndlelight said: fetchin Avatar Mar 24, 2014 at 9:55am fetchin said: I seriously thought UCLA would have attempted to get Michelle Lawrence. Where is she headed? She had a very good freshman year. I would like to know this as well, I think she should have a lot of suitors but probably will stay in California. Read more: volleytalk.proboards.com/thread/52093/d1-transfers-2014?page=15#ixzz2yQJAgWkKShe has narrowed it down to Concordia Irvine and Cal Lutheran. I think she would do great at a small school like Concordia. Haven't heard her decision yet.
|
|
|
Post by courtside on Apr 9, 2014 19:56:21 GMT -5
Have heard Michelle Lawrence was not given a release to play D1. Undoubtedly a disappointment for a lot of California schools. She may turn up on a D2/D3 roster, hitting a foot over the blockers. WTF? Shame on Tom Hilbert. Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by Xplaya on Apr 10, 2014 1:42:38 GMT -5
WTF? Shame on Tom Hilbert. Ditto. Don't go booing Hilbert, unless you know the whole story. There is more to it than anyone here knows.
|
|
|
Post by vball54 on Apr 10, 2014 9:00:36 GMT -5
There is absolutely no good reason why a student athlete should be able to transfer to any school. No one can justify this rule, it hurts the player period. A coach can leave and coach at another school without any real repercussion. Yet, we allow the NCAA to hold down a student athlete who has no bargaining power. It only supports the abusive coaches. Get rid of the rule and lets see how the bully coaches conduct themselves. Maybe they will work a little harder to actually be liked and trusted by their players and perhaps have less transfering take place. Quality coaches allow a girl to transfer, the mean bully coaches do not. Simple reason they want that control and power over the player. I thought sports were for the players. NCAA get rid of the rule and get rid of it now. If they actually cared about the player they would get rid of the no release rule. STUPID RULE. Noone can justify its existence. And shame on the coach, and athletic adminstrators who support it. You know who you are and shame on you!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Xplaya on Apr 10, 2014 9:35:25 GMT -5
All I'm saying is that we don't know the whole story. Looking at her bio, it looks like she was a freshman. She stayed only one semester. Maybe the athletic department has a rule that they don't release student-athletes unless they finish out the year. Maybe rules were broken. I don't know, I'm not there. All I said was not to boo Hilbert without facts, especially since I have never heard of him not releasing a kid before. He's considered one of the good guys in the sport...maybe he allowed her and the admins said no...we don't know. Whether you like the rule or not, diff argument, no need to get on Hilbert without knowing what has happened.
|
|
|
Post by Ralph Kramden on Apr 10, 2014 9:37:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Apr 10, 2014 9:48:43 GMT -5
I believe that the article at the following URL has been previously referenced in this thread. When I first read this I thought the coach was a class act; he took responsibility and had nothing bad to say about the player. Now that I know he didn't give the athlete her release I have to question the sincerity and veracity of those comments. This ought to send up a red flag to any recruit considering CSU. Let's go back a few years to when Evan Sanders left CSU for Washington after her junior year. The coaching staff was not happy at all but they kept their cool, said nice things in public, and granted Evan her release. Cases like this are far more common for Hilbert so that leads me to believe that there is more to Lawrence's situation than I will ever know. Until there is further evidence to the contrary, I will assume that this case is an exception and not the rule.
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Apr 10, 2014 10:15:49 GMT -5
There is absolutely no good reason why a student athlete should be able to transfer to any school. No one can justify this rule, it hurts the player period. A coach can leave and coach at another school without any real repercussion. Yet, we allow the NCAA to hold down a student athlete who has no bargaining power. It only supports the abusive coaches. Get rid of the rule and lets see how the bully coaches conduct themselves. Maybe they will work a little harder to actually be liked and trusted by their players and perhaps have less transfering take place. Quality coaches allow a girl to transfer, the mean bully coaches do not. Simple reason they want that control and power over the player. I thought sports were for the players. NCAA get rid of the rule and get rid of it now. If they actually cared about the player they would get rid of the no release rule. STUPID RULE. Noone can justify its existence. And shame on the coach, and athletic adminstrators who support it. You know who you are and shame on you!!!! No one can justify the rule's existence? I think that is a dangerous blanket statement to make. There is a great deal of room between no rules governing transfers and rules prohibiting them. Most bylaws exist primarily to protect the student-athlete (the definition of "protect" is certainly open for debate) but transfer rules are a rare attempt to protect the school/program. One need not investigate club volleyball for too long to see what happens when there are no rules (or few ineffectual rules) preventing student-athletes from leaving one program for another. Club hopping is common phenomenon that, I venture, most clubs, coaches, and families dislike. The majority are subject to the often capricious decisions of a small number of families that never seem to be satisfied wherever they may go. Student-athletes are making an incredibly important decision, one that affects many people, when they commit to a school. Decisions, especially important ones that involve many people, have consequences. Most schools give releases to student-athletes when they want to transfer, which means that the programs bear the brunt (but not all) of the consequences. The NCAA has made it difficult for the schools to win those battles and I think that is rightfully so. When the schools do win those decisions, we should probably assume that there are circumstances that exist that led to that decision against the student-athlete. If we work from the assumption that the student-athlete is always blameless and/or the victim, then we overlook the fact that the student-athlete and the school entered into a contract. This contract has consequences for both parties, especially when one party seeks to break the contract. There are plenty of examples of each side wishing to break the contract and there are plenty of examples of well- and poorly-justified reasons for doing so. To assume that the student-athlete's reasons are always well-justified goes against a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Even in most of those cases where the reasons are less than moving, the student-athlete is released. Union and payment arguments aside, student-athletes do have bargaining power. That power is strongest when it comes to transfers and releases so when a school actually wins a decision, there is probably just cause for it. I am not saying that there are not "bully coaches" but I am saying that appeals committees exist to create a check on such coaches' power when it comes to transferring. You say that sports are for the players and I agree with you. But in teams sports, a player is part of a team, something larger than themselves. When an individual chooses to remove him/herself from that team, the decision affects many people. These decisions have consequences and sometimes the consequences are felt by all parties and that is the way it should be.
|
|
|
Post by vball54 on Apr 10, 2014 10:19:33 GMT -5
My comment has nothing to do with Hilbert specifically. My comment is directed to why this situation even exist. I can lay out many examples of where Coaches did not grant a release just because they could. They did not take into consideration the fact that the girl could go some place else and play and be happy. No, it was the fact that the coach had failed that girl and egoes were involved and by gosh they were not going to budge. So the girl sits out a year and loses that year. Only person hurt is that girl and the coach has a blackeye from that girl, parents and friends. It is never forgotten and hopefully hurts that program in future recruiting. The rule needs to be wiped off the books. If College students become employees, I can actually see legal action taken place to get rid of this rule. Hopefully, it will never get to that point. But where big money is involved, i.e, football, things can change and they can change pretty fast. Just a poor rule that hopefully will bite the NCAA in the but.
|
|
|
Post by courtside on Apr 10, 2014 10:29:03 GMT -5
Don't go booing Hilbert, unless you know the whole story. There is more to it than anyone here knows. Sorry, but I completely disagree. These kids are committing so early, making decisions to move far away from home, and from this thread (that is hundreds of pages long each and every season), it is clear that many are unhappy and need to transfer. Sounds like sour grapes to me. I can understand not allowing the player to play in conference, but restricting from any other D1, that's just plan mean.
|
|
|
Post by mapleballer on Apr 10, 2014 10:35:24 GMT -5
A Canadian Setter from the northeast is looking for a new home. She'll have three years of eligibility.
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Apr 10, 2014 10:43:08 GMT -5
My comment has nothing to do with Hilbert specifically. My comment is directed to why this situation even exist. I can lay out many examples of where Coaches did not grant a release just because they could. 1. I didn't say your comment was limited to Hilbert. You spoke in general terms, as did I. 2. I agree that there are many examples where coaches didn't grant releases "just because". Most of the time, those coaches lose when the case is appealed to a committee. I mentioned that such committees exist to check such coaches. That's why I said that, in the comparatively rare case when an athlete loses the appeal, we should assume that there are reasons why that appeal failed. There are lots of cases where coaches are mean and disingenuous. There are also cases where the players are selfish and disingenuous. There are cases where both are and cases where neither are. You are talking about one of these types of cases. I am saying that there are many more scenarios, some of which have an athlete that is at least partially at fault.
|
|
|
Post by OptimusPrime on Apr 10, 2014 12:45:45 GMT -5
I believe that the article at the following URL has been previously referenced in this thread. When I first read this I thought the coach was a class act; he took responsibility and had nothing bad to say about the player. Now that I know he didn't give the athlete her release I have to question the sincerity and veracity of those comments. This ought to send up a red flag to any recruit considering CSU. Let's go back a few years to when Evan Sanders left CSU for Washington after her junior year. The coaching staff was not happy at all but they kept their cool, said nice things in public, and granted Evan her release. Cases like this are far more common for Hilbert so that leads me to believe that there is more to Lawrence's situation than I will ever know. Until there is further evidence to the contrary, I will assume that this case is an exception and not the rule. This is not a good example! I am not saying anything about Tom being fair or not, just that the Evan Sanders situation is not a good example. I am extremely familiar with the situation surrounding the Sanders transfer and suffice it to say that Tom was more than happy to give the release to Evan.
|
|
|
Post by vball54 on Apr 10, 2014 13:38:01 GMT -5
sisphus, I will use your team analogy and show you how you are in error. There was a top walkon quarterback in College football who won an award for being the best freshmen player in the conference. That same player was left off of the bowl roster. Where is the team concept there? The coach chose not to make him part of the team. Under your rule, he would have to stay or leave and sit out a year. In my eyes not even close to be fair to the player. The coach triesd to explain it away that it was a huge misunderstanding. As soon as the coach chose to leave him off the roster, he should have been given a full release to go play somewhere else. The coach made his decision and should have to live with it.
Yes, volleyball is a team sport. But if a player does not want to be part of that team, then let them go. It all comes down to control. If you are a good coach and you build trust in your players, they will not want to leave. If you lied to the player about playing time and they are sitting on the bench, then let them leave. If they are good enough to hurt you with your competition then figure out how to treat them with respect. These girls get four years to play a game that will end very soon. Why take away a year because they chose to leave. Yes, there is a cause and effect. I just choose to way it on the side of the student athlete who makes a tremendous sacrifice to play a game where everyone gets paid but the athlete. Time for NCAA to truely look out for the interest of the athlete.
|
|