|
Post by luvtherush on Apr 10, 2014 16:45:52 GMT -5
Since there's been talk of Michelle Lawrence today, thought I'd share this video for anyone who hasn't seen it. It's a play you just don't see everyday.
|
|
|
Post by courtside on Apr 10, 2014 17:59:36 GMT -5
Most of the talk has been related to the coach not giving her a full. transfer. But nice play.
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Apr 15, 2014 14:49:22 GMT -5
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. I won't comment on the interpersonal relationships out of respect for both parties. The coaching staff was definitely not happy about their starting (and far and away best) setter transferring. That's what makes it a good example, CSU as a program was going to be in a worse competitive situation for Evan's absence but granted the release anyway. It was a complicated situation but Tom/CSU gave Evan her release and bore the consequences. Separately, the situation also happens to highlight points from my disagreement with vball54, which is that transfer situations come in many flavors, most of which involve the player requesting the transfer shouldering some of the responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 15, 2014 15:13:29 GMT -5
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. I won't comment on the interpersonal relationships out of respect for both parties. The coaching staff was definitely not happy about their starting (and far and away best) setter transferring. That's what makes it a good example, CSU as a program was going to be in a worse competitive situation for Evan's absence but granted the release anyway. It was a complicated situation but Tom/CSU gave Evan her release and bore the consequences. Separately, the situation also happens to highlight points from my disagreement with vball54, which is that transfer situations come in many flavors, most of which involve the player requesting the transfer shouldering some of the responsibility. This "responsibility" sounds like a bunch of doublespeak. I'm just really curious, what type of "responsibility" for not wanting to play at the program anymore merits denying a release? I could understand if the player dropped out right before pre-season in July leaving the program in a lurch, or if the player gave up on the team. But when a player hits .469 and .400 in their last two matches and gave notice very early in the offseason, I don't really see what would be deserving of a denied release. Are you gonna punish the player for not wanting to play for you anymore? I'm just really curious what type of "responsibility" a player could potentially have here that would deserve it. A player fulfilled the (1-year!) contract by playing hard through the season and gave the staff time to replace them.
|
|
|
Post by MsRSV on Apr 15, 2014 16:15:30 GMT -5
I don't have the time to go way back on this and read every post, but a mid-year freshmen leaving is not the same as a regular transfer. A year in residence is required by the NLI, and S-As who leave mid=year can only be declared eligible at another school by the NLI steering committee, or something like that. In fact, the NLI outlines that breaking the contract (the NLI is indeed a legal agreement) can mean that the student will not only be ineligible to play the next year, that year will count toward eligibility.
In summary, to the best of my recollection, when a frosh leaves mid-year, this is what happens unless they are released from their NLI (which is NOT at all the same thing as a regular transfer release):
1. They certainly are not eligible at another 4 year for the remainder of the freshmen year 2. They are not eligible to compete the next year 3. They are penalized a year of eligibility
I am sure there is a cite out there... but I am not going to google it for you. The point is, leaving before the end of the freshmen year is totally different than leaving after that point.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 15, 2014 16:22:53 GMT -5
I don't have the time to go way back on this and read every post, but a mid-year freshmen leaving is not the same as a regular transfer. A year in residence is required by the NLI, and S-As who leave mid=year can only be declared eligible at another school by the NLI steering committee, or something like that. In fact, the NLI outlines that breaking the contract (the NLI is indeed a legal agreement) can mean that the student will not only be ineligible to play the next year, that year will count toward eligibility. In summary, to the best of my recollection, when a frosh leaves mid-year, this is what happens unless they are released from their NLI (which is NOT at all the same thing as a regular transfer release): 1. They certainly are not eligible at another 4 year for the remainder of the freshmen year 2. They are not eligible to compete the next year 3. They are penalized a year of eligibility I am sure there is a cite out there... but I am not going to google it for you. The point is, leaving before the end of the freshmen year is totally different than leaving after that point. So you'd rather them wait for the full year and then transfer? Okay....... On an unrelated note, DS Tatum Norton is transferring from Oregon.
|
|
|
Post by sisyphus on Apr 15, 2014 16:43:41 GMT -5
This "responsibility" sounds like a bunch of doublespeak. I'm just really curious, what type of "responsibility" for not wanting to play at the program anymore merits denying a release? I could understand if the player dropped out right before pre-season in July leaving the program in a lurch, or if the player gave up on the team. But when a player hits .469 and .400 in their last two matches and gave notice very early in the offseason, I don't really see what would be deserving of a denied release. Are you gonna punish the player for not wanting to play for you anymore? I'm just really curious what type of "responsibility" a player could potentially have here that would deserve it. A player fulfilled the (1-year!) contract by playing hard through the season and gave the staff time to replace them. If you propose that using the term "responsibility" is doublespeak, then what is the term you propose it has been substituted for? As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, players are sometimes disingenuous about their reasons for transferring. If ulterior motives for wanting to transfer are revealed, why should the bulk of the consequences be felt by the program rather than being absorbed more evenly? I think that the example you give of giving notice early in the offseason is incomplete. A program is built with an expectation of a certain level of continuity in the roster. When a player decides to transfer, that can create a problem. Is there a player that can fill the gap created by the transfer? The problem is that a player signed to fill that gap must be able to do so right away. An unsigned senior (which is now a rare breed) is unlikely to fill that gap. A transfer is a better bet to fill the gap immediately but transfers are almost as rare as unsigned seniors. Long term recruiting plans are built around players staying in a program and filling gaps created by transfers is not as easy as finding an high school underclassman. In that sense, the program can very often be left in a lurch, regardless of when the request to transfer is made. I agree that the contract that exists is good for a single year but both parties treat it as a multi-year deal, which is demonstrated by the high frequency of renewals. What I wish could happen would be like covering a shift at a job. I, the boss, will certainly let you, the employee, go once we find a replacement. I will do my best to find one as quickly as possible but I need you to fulfill your end of the bargain until we can get a replacement. This could lead to the player remaining for an additional year because the program is able to sign a junior that spring. Both parties make the best of the situation for that year. This wish exists in a world where both parties work for their common good so it doesn't do much good in reality, where both sides are far more likely to work only towards their own benefit.
|
|
|
Post by courtside on Apr 15, 2014 16:57:54 GMT -5
"On an unrelated note, DS Tatum Norton is transferring from Oregon. "
Where is she transferring to??
|
|
|
Post by MsRSV on Apr 15, 2014 17:12:12 GMT -5
So you'd rather them wait for the full year and then transfer? Okay....... Uhm... I wasn't in any way meaning to imply my druthers, just stating the facts as I recall them.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 15, 2014 17:22:09 GMT -5
This "responsibility" sounds like a bunch of doublespeak. I'm just really curious, what type of "responsibility" for not wanting to play at the program anymore merits denying a release? I could understand if the player dropped out right before pre-season in July leaving the program in a lurch, or if the player gave up on the team. But when a player hits .469 and .400 in their last two matches and gave notice very early in the offseason, I don't really see what would be deserving of a denied release. Are you gonna punish the player for not wanting to play for you anymore? I'm just really curious what type of "responsibility" a player could potentially have here that would deserve it. A player fulfilled the (1-year!) contract by playing hard through the season and gave the staff time to replace them. If you propose that using the term "responsibility" is doublespeak, then what is the term you propose it has been substituted for? As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, players are sometimes disingenuous about their reasons for transferring. If ulterior motives for wanting to transfer are revealed, why should the bulk of the consequences be felt by the program rather than being absorbed more evenly? I think that the example you give of giving notice early in the offseason is incomplete. A program is built with an expectation of a certain level of continuity in the roster. When a player decides to transfer, that can create a problem. Is there a player that can fill the gap created by the transfer? The problem is that a player signed to fill that gap must be able to do so right away. An unsigned senior (which is now a rare breed) is unlikely to fill that gap. A transfer is a better bet to fill the gap immediately but transfers are almost as rare as unsigned seniors. Long term recruiting plans are built around players staying in a program and filling gaps created by transfers is not as easy as finding an high school underclassman. In that sense, the program can very often be left in a lurch, regardless of when the request to transfer is made. I agree that the contract that exists is good for a single year but both parties treat it as a multi-year deal, which is demonstrated by the high frequency of renewals. What I wish could happen would be like covering a shift at a job. I, the boss, will certainly let you, the employee, go once we find a replacement. I will do my best to find one as quickly as possible but I need you to fulfill your end of the bargain until we can get a replacement. This could lead to the player remaining for an additional year because the program is able to sign a junior that spring. Both parties make the best of the situation for that year. This wish exists in a world where both parties work for their common good so it doesn't do much good in reality, where both sides are far more likely to work only towards their own benefit. 1) "Disingenuous in your reasons for a transfer" -- Everyone who is taking the high road says "it's not a good fit" or "I want to move closer to home" when there are other reasons. That one wants to transfer is reason enough for a transfer. Do you really want the athlete to clock everything she hates about the program? Way to encourage some bad blood. 2) In a job, you don't wait around until they find a replacement. You give 2 weeks notice. You don't wait around a full additional year for them to find, interview and onboard a replacement. Someone else picks up the shift.
|
|
|
Post by MsRSV on Apr 15, 2014 17:31:23 GMT -5
2) In a job, you don't wait around until they find a replacement. You give 2 weeks notice. You don't wait around a full additional year for them to find, interview and onboard a replacement. Someone else picks up the shift. Mmmm... Unless you are in some fields... Then you have "no compete" clauses and all sorts of complications.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 15, 2014 17:34:49 GMT -5
2) In a job, you don't wait around until they find a replacement. You give 2 weeks notice. You don't wait around a full additional year for them to find, interview and onboard a replacement. Someone else picks up the shift. Mmmm... Unless you are in some fields... Then you have "no compete" clauses and all sorts of complications. And overly broad non-competes (something equivalent to say... "no release for any D-I school") would be universally held unenforceable.
|
|
|
Post by utoolity on Apr 15, 2014 20:52:24 GMT -5
Recruiting too far in advance makes this issue a serious problem. No one is available when she decides to change course. 6'2 outsides don't just become available to fill in. And at 16 when she committed, or 15, did she really know what she was getting into at CSU and how her life may change between then and now? The girls on the team are completely different than those you visited with and so are the coaches. Aside from Tom.
For CSU. Starting setter as mentioned earlier bailed. So did this outside and so did the other Simpson. They might feel as though they're getting shorted in this process and want to flex their muscle a bit to make sure kids know that this is serious business that affects careers and ncaa appearances. They can't be a weak staff and admin letting athletes rule the roost.
|
|
|
Post by vball54 on Apr 16, 2014 9:34:29 GMT -5
If a coach is worth his or her salt, then those coaches will allow a release. This is all about the weak sisters/brothers who lose the trust of a player. I can lay aout many examples of why a player decides to leave. I don't need to play the blame game or to paint a player as a bad apple to justify getting rid of the rule. The rule is in place for one reason and one reason only. That reason is so that a coach or school can control the situation when the situation fails for them. Why should that happen at all? It took a college player on national tv to emberras the NCAA for them to change a rule on the food issue. No one yet has give a valid plausible reason as to why this rule should be in place other than" we don't want the student athlete to make the decisions- rule the roost". That is a poor excuse for a bad rule. If a player gets into a situation that she does not like, why penalize that player. If the coach or the team can not come together as a team, why force the player to stay or sit out a year. Eventually the girl who transfers will have added fire against her prior school. So the girl sits out a year, what does that serve. We want to punish the girl so the Coach or administrator can stick out theur chest and show how big an a-- hole they are. That makes absolutely no sense to me. How about the coach who want let a player transfer after she only allowed the player to play a hand full of games the prior season. But waite, there are politics, and to many to spell out. Bottom line is get rid of the rule. Let players go play where they want to play. NCAA man up and change this supid rule.
|
|
|
Post by vball54 on Apr 16, 2014 9:51:05 GMT -5
Just so you know where I am coming from, I don't have a personal interest in this issue. I have just seen how this rule has effected friends of mine whose daughters decided to leave a program. In two situations, the programs should have granted releases and did not. Shame on those coaches and programs. I have seen others who did receive releases, and recognize good quality coaches and /or administrators who made the right and fair decision. They also made the decision as to what was in the best interest of the player. Believe me, everyone sees it when you do right or wrong. These coaches are not fooling anyone. To me the bottom line is very simple. Develope a program where the girls want to come and play and stay. If you can't, and girls want to leave, show some class and let them leave. Don't come up with these selfish excuses to punish the girl. If you can't coach with class don't punish a kid because they want to leave. NCAA time to man up and get rid of the one arrow that only bully coaches use.
|
|