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

#2,206
#2,206
It’s pretty clear Pruitt is for open transfers not sitting out. I can respect that opinion and am starting to lean more toward agreeing with him BUT for us to believe that all of our transfers met the criteria set forth by the current rules the ncaa is attempting(a poor attempt at that) to abide by is having blinders on.


From my seat Pruitt doesn’t agree with the current transfer rules and is willing to help ALL his players work around those rules. And Michigan is standing by the current rules and isn’t willing to fudge circumstances to help the players play immediately.
 
#2,207
#2,207
BruinVol said:
It’s pretty clear Pruitt is for open transfers not sitting out. I can respect that opinion and am starting to lean more toward agreeing with him BUT for us to believe that all of our transfers met the criteria set forth by the current rules the ncaa is attempting(a poor attempt at that) to abide by is having blinders on.


From my seat Pruitt doesn’t agree with the current transfer rules and is willing to help ALL his players work around those rules. And Michigan is standing by the current rules and isn’t willing to fudge circumstances to help the players play immediately.
Click to expand...
Even if Michigan isn't "fudging" circumstances, which they actually are doing but I'll go with yer hypothetical for a second. They are changing the reason the players give and saying they just want to transfer for playing time. Basically accusing the players of lying. Pruitt said marquill Osbourne only wanted to transfer for playing time and Pruitt supported it and waiver was approved. Pruitt's approach of supporting the players seems to be reducing transfers. Even guys that want to leave see the support and many change their minds. As opposed to the mass exodus from Harbaugh's dickhead approach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLfan267, TrueVolsGBOInsider, scvolfan7 and 5 others
#2,208
#2,208
Sleegro said:
Even if Michigan isn't "fudging" circumstances, which they actually are doing but I'll go with yer hypothetical for a second. They are changing the reason the players give and saying they just want to transfer for playing time. Basically accusing the players of lying. Pruitt said marquill Osbourne only wanted to transfer for playing time and Pruitt supported it and waiver was approved. Pruitt's approach of supporting the players seems to be reducing transfers. Even guys that want to leave see the support and many change their minds. As opposed to the mass exodus from Harbaugh's dickhead approach.
Click to expand...


If Pruitt said Osborne was transferring for playing time there is no way he would have been granted eligibility unless there was much more to his case

I don’t believe Pruitt wrote that at all
 
#2,209
#2,209
BruinVol said:
If Pruitt said Osborne was transferring for playing time there is no way he would have been granted eligibility unless there was much more to his case

I don’t believe Pruitt wrote that at all
Click to expand...
So yer taking a stance that Michigan's being completely honest when accusing players of lying but Pruitt is lying to the NCAA? Bold choice flenderson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLATNES, VFL_JB, scvolfan7 and 4 others
#2,210
#2,210
Sleegro said:
So yer taking a stance that Michigan's being completely honest when accusing players of lying but Pruitt is lying to the NCAA? Bold choice flenderson.
Click to expand...


No lying just working the system.

The school a player is leaving doesn’t have to tell all the story. Just say the player was a model student and teammate. The player was honest in his every day activities and you support what they claim

You don’t have to add the playing time piece even if you know it’s true
 
#2,212
#2,212
BruinVol said:
No lying just working the system.

The school a player is leaving doesn’t have to tell all the story. Just say the player was a model student and teammate. The player was honest in his every day activities and you support what they claim

You don’t have to add the playing time piece even if you know it’s true
Click to expand...
Or you can say all those things and say the kid wants an opportunity to play and we think he should get it. As long as the previous school supports the waiver it will be approved. I think that's why so many of these questionable waivers are being approved. Like tate. Ryan day probably supported his decision to leave for playing time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chargervol and InVOLuntary
#2,213
#2,213
Sleegro said:
Or you can say all those things and say the kid wants an opportunity to play and we think he should get it. As long as the previous school supports the waiver it will be approved. I think that's why so many of these questionable waivers are being approved. Like tate. Ryan day probably supported his decision to leave for playing time.
Click to expand...

No way is the need for more playing time being approved. if the only thing is required is playing time request then there isn’t a rule at all. When the school mentions playing time that’s when waivers get denied. Just see michigan

Justin Fields and Martel didn’t simply have to say they wanted playing time. You know that wasn’t the case but we also know darn well that was the reason for the transfer. Then then had to use other circumstances to get the waiver approved,

The funny thing is many on this board thought fields and martell shouldn’t be be eligible because we all knew why they transferred but now we seem to be changing. Simply put it appears to me Nearly all of us including me are saying just let all transfers play.
 
#2,214
#2,214
BruinVol said:
No way is the need for more playing time being approved. if the only thing is required is playing time request then there isn’t a rule at all. When the school mentions playing time that’s when waivers get denied. Just see michigan

Justin Fields and Martel didn’t simply have to say they wanted playing time. You know that wasn’t the case but we also know darn well that was the reason for the transfer. Then then had to use other circumstances to get the waiver approved,

The funny thing is many on this board thought fields and martell shouldn’t be be eligible because we all knew why they transferred but now we seem to be changing. Simply put it appears to me Nearly all of us including me are saying just let all transfers play.
Click to expand...
If the previous school supports the waiver it gets approved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc and scvolfan7
#2,215
#2,215
Sleegro said:
If the previous school supports the waiver it gets approved.
Click to expand...

You are dead wrong if you are saying

School says a player left for playing time and they support the waiver and the player says he left for more playing time with no other circumstances

Zero chance that waiver gets approved
 
#2,216
#2,216
Maybe the NCAA doesn't really stick to the letter of the law if both the student and the school are on the same page? These transfer rules are developed by a committee of member institution representatives. Maybe if both parties think it's in best interest of the student to find a better home then the NCAA pretty much rubber stamps it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda and Sleegro
#2,217
#2,217
InVOLuntary said:
Maybe the NCAA doesn't really stick to the letter of the law if both the student and the school are on the same page? These transfer rules are developed by a committee of member institution representatives. Maybe if both parties think it's in best interest of the student to find a better home then the NCAA pretty much rubber stamps it.
Click to expand...


I think if the school doesn’t contradict the extreme circumstance the player uses in the appeal and signs off on their social and academic standing then yes it’s a done deal


But for anyone to think an “extreme circumstance” doesn’t have to be used is wrong regardless of what the school says
 
#2,218
#2,218
InVOLuntary said:
Maybe the NCAA doesn't really stick to the letter of the law if both the student and the school are on the same page? These transfer rules are developed by a committee of member institution representatives. Maybe if both parties think it's in best interest of the student to find a better home then the NCAA pretty much rubber stamps it.
Click to expand...
This
 
  • Like
Reactions: cHiZzLeVOL
#2,219
#2,219
BruinVol said:
I think if the school doesn’t contradict the extreme circumstance the player uses in the appeal and signs off on their social and academic standing then yes it’s a done deal


But for anyone to think an “extreme circumstance” doesn’t have to be used is wrong regardless of what the school says
Click to expand...
Not this
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda, butchna and InVOLuntary
#2,220
#2,220
BruinVol said:
If Pruitt said Osborne was transferring for playing time there is no way he would have been granted eligibility unless there was much more to his case

I don’t believe Pruitt wrote that at all
Click to expand...

He stated that Osborne just wanted an opportunity. Also, if the school supports the transfer and ask for them to be immediately eligible and also probably writes that they are a good student as well. I doubt the NCAA is going to keep them from having immediate eligibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orangebloodgmc and Sleegro
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top