'17 GA DT Aubrey Solomon (NCAA IS A FAIR ORGANIZATION)

#2,501
#2,501
Sleegro said:
Haha I kept expecting him to bump that one. Still different than what he was claiming and not at all the point or relevant. I had response ready though. Hahahaha
Click to expand...
I had read the beginning and knew but figured he was hoping he had rambled on so long that everyone forgot what was actually said.

Was also suspicious that you were letting him continue "stretching the truth" about it. Giving him enough rope I presume, oops if I jumped too early. 👍
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna, Sleegro and SweetasSoda
#2,502
#2,502
chargervol said:
I had read the beginning and knew but figured he was hoping he had rambled on so long that everyone forgot what was actually said.

Was also suspicious that you were letting him continue "stretching the truth" about it. Giving him enough rope I presume, oops if I jumped too early. 👍
Click to expand...
Nah yer good. I was just shocked he missed it. He bumped the very next post that had no mention of playing time instead. Hahaha
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda and chargervol
#2,504
#2,504
chargervol said:
I had read the beginning and knew but figured he was hoping he had rambled on so long that everyone forgot what was actually said.

Was also suspicious that you were letting him continue "stretching the truth" about it. Giving him enough rope I presume, oops if I jumped too early. 👍
Click to expand...
Woody Quinn lie redeaux.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sleegro and chargervol
#2,505
#2,505
TrueVolsGBOInsider said:
So you think it’s impossible for the university of Tennessee to have screwed something up in Aubrey’s paperwork basically?? I would disagree with you there, people mess up everyday regardless of the checks and balances in place to prevent it. You think it’s just a long drawn out process, and I think they screwed up on the first waiver and had to resubmit it and now harbough is digging his feet in.
Click to expand...

This article is worth a read.

“I have told every coach that has called, that the process begins and ends with the school’s compliance staff at the school in which the student-athlete transfers to,” he said. “They own the process – lock stock and barrel.”

Transfer specialist lawyer Tom Mars details Aubrey Solomon case
 
#2,510
#2,510
BruinVol said:
Lol

Still no answer I see

That is very telling and cowardly
Click to expand...
What does it matter? Did I say that it could be the only thing in the waiver and work? No of course not. But technically it can with a run off waiver like the one saban wrote for the kid that went to Cincinnati. Basically the prior coach has to state that the kid didn't get kicked off for grades or discipline or anything in their control and isn't losing their scholarship, but won't be on the team. Usually because they were recruited over. And so the only way the kid will get PLAYING TIME is if they transfer. And the prior school has to support waiving the year off. To be clear, I don't think this was used for marquil Osbourne before you put those words in my mouth. Just pointing out that this can be used purely for playing time in the eyes of the NCAA. And there is an example this year of it working. And I wouldn't be surprised if this was how tate Martell got his waiver to Miami cause day just didn't want his attitude around his team. Nb4 toby hypocritically tries to use semantics saying this is different cause they don't explicitly say playing time.

Kelly Brooks, a director of academic and membership affairs with the NCAA who oversees the legislative relief staff gave some background on these waivers. This waiver is designed for athletes who have not been kicked off the team for academic or disciplinary reasons. That would be within the control of the student-athlete. Athletic performance is not considered within the athlete’s control, whether the team is oversigned, the athlete was “recruited over”, or the coach misevaluated the athlete and they do not meet the standards of the program.

The guidelines do not differentiate between different reasons why an athlete was cut from the team, so long as it was not within the athlete’s control. To that end, the NCAA will ask the previous institution what the athlete’s status was when they were told they no longer could participate. Participation is the critical point, not the athlete’s scholarship. An athlete who has their scholarship cut but still has a spot on the team would not get relief under these guidelines.

Despite having a relatively low bar compared to some other waivers and the number of athletes who transfer because they were cut from the team, these waivers are rare. The reason, according to Brooks, is that few coaches and athletic departments are willing to go on record that they cut or ran off a student-athlete who had no disciplinary or academic problems. Some will respond by agreeing to support the waiver, but will not admit to the conversation where the athlete was run off, which makes meeting the first requirement difficult.

This is not some Holy Grail that lets all or even most athletes transfer and play immediately in sports like football and basketball. But it does soften the blow for athletes who find themselves out of a team due to oversigning, over recruiting, or a coaching change. The only thing needed is for coaches who cut players for athletic reasons to be willing to stand by that decision, especially considering how valuable it can be to the student-athlete.
Click to expand...

The NCAA's Little Known Run Off Waiver

Once again, the key is cooperation from the previous school. Which has always been my point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, butchna, SweetasSoda and 1 other person
#2,511
#2,511
Sleegro said:
What does it matter? Did I say that it could be the only thing in the waiver and work? No of course not. But technically it can with a run off waiver like the one saban wrote for the kid that went to Cincinnati. Basically the prior coach has to state that the kid didn't get kicked off for grades or discipline or anything in their control and isn't losing their scholarship, but won't be on the team. Usually because they were recruited over. And so the only way the kid will get PLAYING TIME is if they transfer. And the prior school has to support waiving the year off. To be clear, I don't think this was used for marquil Osbourne before you put those words in my mouth. Just pointing out that this can be used purely for playing time in the eyes of the NCAA. And there is an example this year of it working. And I wouldn't be surprised if this was how tate Martell got his waiver to Miami cause day just didn't want his attitude around his team. Nb4 toby hypocritically tries to use semantics saying this is different cause they don't explicitly say playing time.



The NCAA's Little Known Run Off Waiver
Click to expand...

As I said the ONLY reason

So can transferring for playing time be the ONLY reason and as long as the school a player is leaving supports it the waiver will be granted???

Come on man it’s a yes or no question

Hey the answer is NO
 
Last edited:
#2,515
#2,515
BruinVol said:
As I said the ONLY reason

So can transferring for playing time be the ONLY reason and as long as the school a player is leaving supports it the waiver will be granted???

Come on man it’s a yes or no question

Hey the answer is NO
Click to expand...
I thought you were supposed to off of this board still. Yet here you are.
 
#2,516
#2,516
BruinVol said:
No I have I only proved how dumb one poster is about one topic. He’s usually a good poster with good takes. He’s just wrong this time
Click to expand...
Congratulations. Way to go. Hope you feel better.

You proved my point. You hijacked a thread AGAIN to prove your intelligence.
 
#2,518
#2,518
BruinVol said:
So what’s the answer?
Click to expand...
I just gave a way its possible. But I'm sure yer gonna find some semantics to argue with that about. Haha. I still love ya bru bear and had a lot of fun with this today but I made my points and am done with it now. I had been saving that last one all day waiting for you to bump my post that charger found but you never did. Hahaha We'll find something else to debate about soon I'm sure. Till then enjoy the L.
 
#2,520
#2,520
Looks like I got a few likes and no responses with the link so I guess it's official. Poll is closed. I get the W.

Screenshot_20190824-200335_Chrome.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: chargervol
#2,522
#2,522
BruinVol said:
Lol

Sorry my man. A popularity pole doesn’t make you right:

If playing time is the only reason used in a waiver the player isn’t getting a waiver.

Sorry you can’t admit it.
Click to expand...
Would you please just LET IT GO. My goodness Bruin, are you this argumentative all the time with everyone in your life? You are like a child in school who is repeatedly told to hush but continues to try and get the last word. Please drop it!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Easttnken, roosterjbh, Shomesumluv and 8 others
#2,525
#2,525
GiggerVol said:
Would you please just LET IT GO. My goodness Bruin, are you this argumentative all the time with everyone in your life? You are like a child in school who is repeatedly told to hush but continues to try and get the last word. Please drop it!!!!!
Click to expand...
Lol, worst part is sleegro said this basically twice
Sleegro said:
Did I say that it could be the only thing in the waiver and work? No of course not
Click to expand...
and accusing him of not saying this was basically Bruin's entire argument.

But with Bru, you never know if he's just trolling or his lips are just flapping so much that his eyes can't see😂😂😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sleegro, Wadetime, SweetasSoda and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top