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

#1,352
#1,352
chargervol said:
Someone change my mind.
Sitting for a year is complete b.s. in football, not as much in other sports but definitely fb. The NCAA should be ashamed for the reasons they list, also and here is why.

NCAA says it's because of the time needed to adjust and thus their grades suffer due to time spent on sports instead of their studies. Both Solomon and Gibbs, despite him being a redshirt, are spending every single minute in practice, meetings and workouts as say JG or Ty Chandler.

Is it really just the 3 hour games that's too much? Really? Because that's the only difference. And why does the rule not apply to true freshmen then? Are they not just arriving and adjusting exactly like transfers? And if it's about adjustment, why would they approve anyone?

It's a punishment for employees they don't even pay. Schools give scholarships and meals, the NCAA provides nothing. Yet grants themselves the power to punish their free labor.

Convince me I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Charger, further to your comments:
(1) I think it was in the 1970's, the NCAA changed the rules to allow freshman eligibility. Before the rule change, freshmen couldn't play in varsity games. So, basically the NCAA acknowledged over 40 years ago that the acclimation period wasn't a big deal for new guys on campus. And there surely isn't a tougher transition for a new guy transferring from another college vs. a new guy right out of high school.
(2) The NCAA's priorities are to maximize profits for the universities, and promote fair play with respect to eligibility, recruiting, student athlete benefits, transfer rules, playoffs, etc. Maximizing profits is their first priority, fair play comes in second. Looking after the athletes' welfare is a distant third priority. The transfer eligibility rules were loosened because the athletes are gaining leverage against the NCAA, not because the NCAA WANTS to treat the athletes better. So, just keep in mind that the NCAA is representing the interests of university bureaucrats.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chargervol
#1,353
#1,353
VolsSince78 said:
Charger, further to your comments:
(1) I think it was in the 1970's, the NCAA changed the rules to allow freshman eligibility. Before the rule change, freshmen couldn't play in varsity games. So, basically the NCAA acknowledged over 40 years ago that the acclimation period wasn't a big deal for new guys on campus. And there surely isn't a tougher transition for a new guy transferring from another college vs. a new guy right out of high school.
(2) The NCAA's priorities are to maximize profits for the universities, and promote fair play with respect to eligibility, recruiting, student athlete benefits, transfer rules, playoffs, etc. Maximizing profits is their first priority, fair play comes in second. Looking after the athletes' welfare is a distant third priority. The transfer eligibility rules were loosened because the athletes are gaining leverage against the NCAA, not because the NCAA WANTS to treat the athletes better. So, just keep in mind that the NCAA is representing the interests of university bureaucrats.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And you got the point of the post perfectly. It's not the 'compensation' debate, it's the reason the NCAA themselves list.

If it were about acclimation, as they claim, why would they approve anyone? Even kids with hardships would have to acclimate.
It's a fallacy reasoning, at least be honest if you're going to make consequences, because that's what they're really doing and very selectively at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc, Orangeredblooded and SweetasSoda
#1,355
#1,355
OnOne said:
Then shouldn’t these multi millionaire coaches have “consequences” from bouncing from employer to employer🤔
Click to expand...

Fwiw the intent of the year-in-residency requirement isn't to be a punishment. Sitting a year is done in the interest of the student. Some see it as punishment, and that seems clear if we are only looking at them as athletes. It is actually from tons of research showing an SA, during their year of transfer, can get overwhelmed and their academics suffer, some to the point of no longer being on track to graduate or even continue in college.
 
#1,359
#1,359
Jack Burton said:
I don’t like the way this one is trending.
Click to expand...
How is it trending? Is it because AtlantaVol posted
“At first if you don’t succeed, try again”? If they had to appeal a first ruling and contested it, doesn’t mean it’s trending anywhere. Just means it’s still in limbo, wait and see mode.
 
  • Like
Reactions: titansvolsfaninga, SweetasSoda and LoudOrange
#1,362
#1,362
Orangeredblooded said:
How is it trending? Is it because AtlantaVol posted
“At first if you don’t succeed, try again”? If they had to appeal a first ruling and contested it, doesn’t mean it’s trending anywhere. Just means it’s still in limbo, wait and see mode.
Click to expand...

As tight lipped and sensitive (Hipaa) as these things are, I'd be surprised if anyone has first hand knowledge of what is happening here outside of Solomon, Pruitt, Fulmer, and a complicance officer or two. This group hasn't let much slip out, would be surprised if something this personal slipped out here. But I also don't doubt if a lot of minds are veering toward an appeal as a real possibility this deep in.

That said, if we have had to ask for reconsiderstion or at worst an appeal, those aren't positives. Odds tend to get slimmer the further you go. Doesn't rule them out, but not positive indicators.
 
#1,363
#1,363
Orangeredblooded said:
How is it trending? Is it because AtlantaVol posted
“At first if you don’t succeed, try again”? If they had to appeal a first ruling and contested it, doesn’t mean it’s trending anywhere. Just means it’s still in limbo, wait and see mode.
Click to expand...


No idea if it’s accurate but a media outlet did report it as well
 
#1,365
#1,365
#1,366
#1,366
Devo182 said:
As tight lipped and sensitive (Hipaa) as these things are, I'd be surprised if anyone has first hand knowledge of what is happening here outside of Solomon, Pruitt, Fulmer, and a complicance officer or two. This group hasn't let much slip out, would be surprised if something this personal slipped out here. But I also don't doubt if a lot of minds are veering toward an appeal as a real possibility this deep in.

That said, if we have had to ask for reconsiderstion or at worst an appeal, those aren't positives. Odds tend to get slimmer the further you go. Doesn't rule them out, but not positive indicators.
Click to expand...

IF they had already submitted an appeal, It will show, either they have justification for pushing for a appeal or if not, they will show they at least, fought to the bitter end. We, as fans, are still speculating at the ultimate outcome, we don’t know if it’s trending either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc and SweetasSoda
#1,368
#1,368
Devo182 said:
Fwiw the intent of the year-in-residency requirement isn't to be a punishment. Sitting a year is done in the interest of the student. Some see it as punishment, and that seems clear if we are only looking at them as athletes. It is actually from tons of research showing an SA, during their year of transfer, can get overwhelmed and their academics suffer, some to the point of no longer being on track to graduate or even continue in college.
Click to expand...
So they only care about the ones that deny and don't care about the ones they approve? Interesting
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc, SweetasSoda and VolsSince78
#1,369
#1,369
KeyVol14 said:
I thought the paperwork wasn't even submitted at the time during spring ball?
Click to expand...

I have no idea when the paperwork was submitted


From what I can tell I’m the at least the first poster to say here that I thought we had been given a denial and were appealing it

I was just guessing a week or so ago when I said that
 
#1,370
#1,370
For the love of gawd NCAA...throw UT a g-dammed bone and make him eligible. In the grand scheme of things, it's not gonna disrupt the prospects of the favored programs like UGA, Bama, OSU, etc. Just give us one damned break...just one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustSomeVolFan and StoVol
#1,371
#1,371
BruinVol said:
I have no idea when the paperwork was submitted


From what I can tell I’m the at least the first poster to say here that I thought we had been given a denial and were appealing it

I was just guessing a week or so ago when I said that
Click to expand...
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but check my post history. Thought the same around the 1st of the month. LAVol has been hinting at it if you ask me
 
#1,372
#1,372
chargervol said:
Someone change my mind.
Sitting for a year is complete b.s. in football, not as much in other sports but definitely fb. The NCAA should be ashamed for the reasons they list, also and here is why.

NCAA says it's because of the time needed to adjust and thus their grades suffer due to time spent on sports instead of their studies. Both Solomon and Gibbs, despite him being a redshirt, are spending every single minute in practice, meetings and workouts as say JG or Ty Chandler.

Is it really just the 3 hour games that's too much? Really? Because that's the only difference. And why does the rule not apply to true freshmen then? Are they not just arriving and adjusting exactly like transfers? And if it's about adjustment, why would they approve anyone?

It's a punishment for employees they don't even pay. Schools give scholarships and meals, the NCAA provides nothing. Yet grants themselves the power to punish their free labor.

Convince me I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

1486524603_giraffe-eating-popcorn.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: chargervol
#1,375
#1,375
VOLATNES said:
Rarely is the coach the one who actually pays the buyout. The hiring university ponies up for that. So that is not a consequence in the least.
Click to expand...
still a consquence for the school. if the buy out isn't worth it they don't get fired/hired.

look at Malzahn. or any coach on the hot seat. that buyout matters plenty. there is a reason the schools put that into the contracts for new hires. that was part of the galactic messup that was Mike Hamiliton and Kiffin. No buyout for Kiffin to go to USC. you better believe that had a big part in him leaving like he did.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top